House of Assembly: Vol106 - FRIDAY 27 JANUARY 1961

FRIDAY, 27 JANUARY 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

BUSINESS COMMITTEE

Mr. SPEAKER announced that he had appointed the following members to constitute the Business Committee, viz.: The Minister of Lands, the Minister of Finance, Messrs. Barnett, de Kock, Faurie, Higgerty, Hopewell, Hughes, J E. Potgieter, M. J. de la R. Venter, von Moltke and Williams.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Criminal Jurisdiction Granted to Certain Chiefs *I. Dr. D. L. SMIT

—Reply standing over.

*Mr. HOPEWELL (for Dr. D. L. Smit)

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether any Chiefs have been authorized to order the removal of Natives in terms of Regulation No. 12 of Proclamation No. R.400, dated 29 November 1960; if so, (a) what is the name and rank of each and (b) how many removal orders have been granted by them;
  2. (2) whether extended criminal jurisdiction has been granted to any Chiefs in terms of Regulation No. 13 of the Proclamation; if so, (a) what is the name and rank of each and (b) what qualifications does each possess for the exercise of such functions;
  3. (3) (a) how many persons of each race have been arrested for questioning in terms of Regulation No. 19 of the Proclamation (as amended by Proclamation No. R.413 of 12 December 1960), (b) for what periods have they been detained and (c) at what places have they been detained in the meantime; and
  4. (4) (a) in how many cases have the persons so detained been granted permission in terms of Regulation No. 20 to consult with their legal advisers in connection with their arrest and detention and (b) what is the reason for restricting the right of such persons to consult their legal advisers on these matters.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Yes. (a) Paramount Chief Botha Sigcau, Paramount Chief Victor Poto, Paramount Chief Sabata Dalinyebo and Chief Kaiser Matanzima. (b) None.
  2. (2) Yes. (a) The same chiefs mentioned in my reply to 1 (a) above.
    1. (b) All are senior chiefs as well as respected and enlightened men. Chief Matanzima has a B.A. degree, Paramount Chief Victor Poto has passed Std. 8 and Paramount Chiefs Botha Sigcau and Sabata Dalinyebo have both passed Std. 9.
  3. (3) (a) 361 Bantu persons.
    1. (b) 1 for 2 days, 1 for 7 days, 1 for 31 days, 1 for 37 days and 357 for periods ranging between 5 and 43 days.

(c)

Bizana

58

Lusikisiki

29

Tabankulu

11

Umtata

41

Ngqeleni

29

Engcobo

1

Nqamakwe

4

Flagstaff

111

Kokstad

25

Mount Ayliff

15

Matatiele

11

Mqanduli

19

Butterworth

1

Willowvale

2

357

  1. (4) (a) No requests to consult with legal advisers have been received from any of these detainees.
    1. (b) Falls away.
Units of Defence Force Moved into Pondoland *III. Mr. HOPEWELL (for Dr. D. L. Smit)

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether units of the South African Defence Force have been moved into Pondoland in connection with recent disturbances among the Pondos; if so,
  2. (2) (a) what is the strength of these units,
    1. (b) with what armaments are they equipped and
    2. (c) at what centres are they stationed; and
  3. (3) (a) what is the estimated cost of the undertaking and
    1. (b) for what period is it anticipated that these forces will be maintained in Pondoland.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) (a) and (c) It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose the information sought.
    1. (b) Standard infantry platoon weapons only, viz. 303 rifles, light machine guns, pistols and carbines.
  3. (3) (a) It is not possible to furnish the information at this stage.
    1. (b) For as long as circumstances dictate.
Trial of Persons Taken into Custody in Pondoland *IV. Mr. HIGGERTY

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) (a) How many (i) Bantu persons, (ii) Europeans and (iii) persons of other races were taken into custody during the recent disturbances in Pondoland and (b) how many of them have been brought to trial; and
  2. (2) what steps are being taken to bring any persons arrested in connection with these disturbances to a speedy trial.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

(1)

(a)

(i)

Bantu

4,769

(ii)

Europeans

2

(iii)

Other races

2

(b)

(i)

Bantu

2,067

(ii)

Europeans

2

(iii)

Other races

2

  1. (2) Everything possible is being done to dispose of the cases against the persons in custody as speedily as possible.
Nature and Extent of Disturbances in Pondoland *V. Mr. HIGGERTY

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

Whether he will make a statement indicating (a) the causes, the nature and the extent of the recent disturbances in Pondoland, (b) what action the Government took under its normal powers and under special emergency powers to end the disturbances and (c) the present situation in Pondoland.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

(a) (b) and (c). Yes, I have already done so, and will continue to keep the House informed on the matters raised by the honourable member.

New Series of Decimal Postage Stamps *VI. Mr. S. T. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether it is the intention to issue a new series of definitive postage stamps when the Union’s currency is changed to the decimal system;
  2. (2) whether a further new series of definitive stamps will be issued in the date on which South Africa is to become a republic; and, if not,
  3. (3) whether a special series of postage stamps will be issued to commemorate the establishment of a republic.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) Yes. The new series of 13 stamps will, however, not have new designs, but will be made up from the designs of nine stamps in the existing animal series and four in the Union Festival series;
  2. (2) yes; and
  3. (3) falls away.
Mr. MOORE:

Arising out of the hon. Minister’s reply, I should like to ask him whether a 3c stamp will be issued?

Mr. GAY:

May I ask the hon. the Minister that wherever commemorative stamps are issued, they are of a size which renders them suitable for use for ordinary commercial purposes …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Conversion of Postage Tariffs to Decimal System *VII. Mr. S. J. M. STEYN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether he will make a statement on the postal and other tariffs to be introduced when the Union’s currency is changed to the decimal system; and
  2. (2) whether his attention has been drawn to undertakings given by members of the Cabinet in Parliament that the introduction of a decimal system of currency would not be used as an occasion to increase the costs of Government services to the public.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) A large number and a diversity of tariffs are involved, the conversion of which is a protracted and complicated process. Details are being announced through the normal channels; and
  2. (2) yes. This principle is closely observed.
Personnel of South African Information Service *VIII. Mr. HOPEWELL

asked the Minister of External Affairs:

  1. (1) What is the number of persons at present on the establishment of the South African Information Service; and
  2. (2) how many of them are normally employed (a) in the Union and (b) outside the Union.
The MINISTER OF LANDS:
  1. (1) 128, i.e. professional, technical, administrative, clerical and general.
  2. (2) (a) 93.
    1. (b) 35.
Routes Proclaimed for Private Hauliers and Road Motor Services *IX. Mr. HOPEWELL

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) In respect of how many routes have (a) private hauliers and (b) the Road Motor Services of the South African Railways been gazetted in terms of Section 13 of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930;
  2. (2) in how many instances have applications by (a) the South African Railways and (b) private hauliers to be gazetted in terms of this section been (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful; and
  3. (3) whether the Road Motor Services of the South African Railways have successfully applied to be gazetted in respect of any routes for which private hauliers previously have unsuccessfully applied in terms of this section; if so, in respect of (a) how many and (b) which routes.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) The provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930 (Act No. 39 of 1930), as amended, are declared to be applicable to the road carrier and not to specific routes or areas.
    1. (a) Falls away.
    2. (b) Falls away.
  2. (2) The provisions of Section 13 (3) of Act 39/1930 are automatically applicable to the South African Railway Administration.
    1. (a) Falls away.
    2. (b) (i) 11.
      1. (ii) 35.
  3. (3) See (1) above.
    1. (a) and (b) Fall away.
Railways: Petrol and Diesel Fuel used by Road Motor Services *X. Mr. HOPEWELL

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) How many gallons of (a) petrol and (b) diesel fuel were consumed by the Road Motor Services of the South African Railways during 1960; and
  2. (2) whether any taxes were paid on these fuels; if so, what amount.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) For the period November 1959 to October 1960, the latest 12 months for which the information is available, the figures are:
    1. (a) petrol 3,186,083 gallons;
    2. (b) diesel fuel … 3,611,545 gallons.
  2. (2) No.
Convictions Under Pass Laws *XI. Mr. J. LEWIS

asked the Minister of Justice:

How many Bantu men were convicted for offences connected with the laws and regulations known as the pass laws during (a) the 12 months up to and including 31 March 1960 and (b) the nine months up to and including 31 December 1960.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Separate statistics in respect of the contraventions referred to are not maintained and owing to the enormous amount of work involved in gathering the information called for and the considerable time that will be taken up with this, I regret that I am unable to furnish the required information.

Cost of V.H.F. Transmitting Stations *XII. Mr. J. LEWIS

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (a) What will the estimated cost of the introduction of very high frequency sound broadcasting in the Union be; and
  2. (b) how will it be financed by the South African Broadcasting Corporation.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

For the initial phase of the work, i.e. the erection of V.H.F. transmitting stations for the area Vereeniging, Witwatersrand and Pretoria the estimated cost is £1,000,000. This amount has been made available to the S.A.B.C. by way of a loan by the State. The cost of extending the service over the rest of the Union will amount to approximately £11,000,000 and decisions in regard to the financing thereof will be taken from time to time as and when funds are required.

Government Policy in Regard to T.Y. *XIII. Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether it is the Government’s intention to permit the South African Broadcasting Corporation or private enterprise to introduce television services in the Union; if so, (a) what action is contemplated in this respect and (b) when will such action be taken; and, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

It is the Government’s declared policy not to introduce television in the Union at this stage;

  1. (a) falls away, and
  2. (b) the Government’s point of view was fully explained to the House last year.
Cost of Change-over to V.H.F. Broadcasting *XIV. Mrs. S. M. VAN NIEKERK

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether the South African Broadcasting Corporation or the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has made an estimate of the cost to South African radio listeners to convert their radios to a very high frequency sound reception; if so, what is the estimated cost; and, if not, why was an estimate not made before the decision was taken to introduce V.H.F. broadcasting in the Union.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

No. The existing broadcasting system will be maintained as a parallel service for a period of 10 to 15 years. According to surveys this period represents the ordinary life of a radio set and consequently the gradual change-over to the V.H.F. system should not involve listeners in any appreciable additional expenditure.

Only Permanent Force Units in Pondoland *XV. Mr. GAY

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) Whether any Permanent Force or Citizen Force units of the South African Defence Force have been on service in Pondoland or the adjoining areas; if so,
    1. (a) what units and
    2. (b) for what duties were they employed;
  2. (2) whether they encountered any organized or armed resistance;
  3. (3) whether they have made use of fire-arms or other military equipment;
  4. (4) whether any casualties were
    1. (a) inflicted and
    2. (b) sustained; if so, what was the number and nature of such casualties in each case;
  5. (5) whether any vessels of the South African Navy have been used in connection with the emergency in Pondoland; if so,
    1. (a) what ships and
    2. (b) on what duties were they engaged; and
  6. (6) whether they have encountered any hostile action or intercepted any vessel off the Pondoland or adjoining coastline.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) Yes, Permanent Force units only.
    1. (a) 1 and 2 Mobile Watch, a flight of Harvard aircraft, a flight of helicopters as well as the requisite supporting elements, viz. signals, supply and medical.
    2. (b) In terms of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Defence Act, 1957.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) No use has been made of fire-power apart from one warning shot in the case of an escaping Bantu; military equipment has been used in the normal role.
  4. (4) Only casualties of a minor nature caused accidentally.
  5. (5) No.
  6. (6) Falls away.
Names and Specifications of New Frigates *XVI. Mr. GAY

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (a) When is the first of the new frigates being built for the South African Navy expected to arrive at Simonstown;
  2. (b) how many of these vessels are on order;
  3. (c) what are their
    1. (i) names, and
    2. (ii) expected dates of arrival;
  4. (d) where are they being built;
  5. (e) what is the estimated cost per completed vessel;
  6. (f) what are their estimated
    1. (i) displacements, and
    2. (ii) overall dimensions, and
  7. (g) what will be the number of
    1. (i) officers, and
    2. (ii) petty officers and ratings required to man each vessel when in commission on a peace-time basis and a war-time basis, respectively.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (a) September 1962.
  2. (b) Three.
  3. (c) (i) President Kruger,
    • President Pretorius, and
    • President Steyn.
  4. (ii) September 1962, April 1963 and end 1963.
  5. (d) In Glasgow.
  6. (e) £4,230,000.
  7. (f) (i) 2,200 tons standard and 2,800 tons full load.
    1. (ii) 370 × 41 × 12 feet.
  8. (g) (i) 10 and 16 respectively.
    1. (ii) 208 and 244 respectively.
Service and Cost of Maintenance of Certain Naval Vessels *XVII. Mr. GAY

asked the Minister of Defence:

  1. (1) What are the latest dates on which
    1. (a) S.A.S. Johan van Riebeeck,
    2. (b) S.A.S. Simon van der Stel,
    3. (c) S.A.S. Pietermaritzburg,
    4. (d) S.A.S. Bloemfontein, and
    5. (e) S.A.S. Protea were
      1. (i) in full service commission,
      2. (ii) at sea under their own power, and
      3. (iii) in dry dock;
  2. (2) whether these vessels are kept in a state of repair and maintenance which will permit their speedy re-commissioning if required in emergency;
  3. (3) what is
    1. (a) the time required, and
    2. (b) the estimated cost to restore each ship to fully commissioned sea-going service; and
  4. (4) what has been the total expenditure, including manning, repairs and maintenance, mooring costs, etc., incurred on each vessel during each year from 1 January 1957 to date.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:
  1. (1) (a) S.A.S. van Riebeeck
    1. (i) August 1952,
    2. (ii) August 1952,
    3. (iii) April 1960;
  2. (b) S.A.S. Simon van der Stel
    1. (i) September 1955,
    2. (ii) August 1955,
    3. (iii) April 1960;
  3. (c) S.A.S. Pietermaritzburg
    1. (i) March 1955,
    2. (ii) March 1955,
    3. (iii) May 1958;
  4. (d) S.A.S. Bloemfontein
    1. (i) April 1953,
    2. (ii) February 1953,
    3. (iii) in dock now;
  5. (e) S.A.S. Protea
    1. (i) December 1956,
    2. (ii) December 1956,
    3. (iii) May 1958.
  1. (2) The destroyers Jan van Riebeeck and Simon van der Stel and the survey ship Protea are awaiting disposal as they have now reached the stage where it will be uneconomical to modernize them.
    • The minesweepers Pietermaritzburg and Bloemfontein are in a state of repair and maintenance that will permit their speedy re-commissioning.
  2. (3) It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose the information sought but I am prepared, if the honourable member desires it, to give it to him in my office personally.

(4)

1957

1958

1959

1960

S.A.S. Jan van Riebeeck

£5,528

£9,132

£6,361

£5,231

S.A.S. Simon van der Stel

£5,653

£6,601

£6,858

£4,849

S.A.S. Pietermaritzburg

£4,255

£2,799

£1,599

£1,301

S.A.S. Bloemfontein

£1,416

£2,919

£2,733

£1,403

S.A.S. Protea

£1,973

£3,121

£2,246

£1,873

Nature of Subscriptions to Recent Loans *XVIII. Mr. WATERSON

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) What was the total amount subscribed for the recent 20-year 51 per cent and 5-year 41 per cent loans offered by the Treasury; and
  2. (2) how much of this amount was (a) subscribed in cash by (i) private institutions and (ii) Government-controlled bodies and (b) obtained through the conversion of maturing loan stock.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) £18,812,403.
  2. (2) (a) (i) £3,463,333.
    1. (ii) £5,000,000,
  3. (b) £10,349,070.
Consultation on Interest Rate Policy *XIX. Mr. WATERSON

asked the Minister of Finance:

Whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend to the monetary authorities an increase in interest rates.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

It is the practice for the Treasury and the Reserve Bank to consult on the appropriate interest rate policy from time to time. This in general takes account of the trends of supply and demand in the money and capital markets of the Union. In accordance with this practice the Treasury and the Reserve Bank are watching the present trends and will take such action as may be necessary from time to time.

Use made of Facilities of Monetary Fund *XX. Mr. WATERSON

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) What use has been made during the current financial year of facilities with the International Monetary Fund; and
  2. (2) what drawing facilities are still available.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) The Union has purchased from the International Monetary Fund foreign currency equivalent to $12,500,000 (about £4,500,000).
  2. (2) The fund has agreed to an application from the Union to sell to it, if required, further amounts of foreign currency equivalent to $25,000,000 (about £9,000,000); making a total of $37,500,000 or 25 per cent of the Union’s quota in the Fund. The Articles of Agreement of the Fund provide inter alia that any proposed purchase should not cause the Fund’s holdings of the purchasing member’s currency to increase by more than 25 per cent of its quota during the period of 12 months ending on the date of the purchase. The Fund may, however, waive this stipulation, and it is possible that the Fund would agree, if circumstances required it, to sell to the Union further amounts of foreign currency to a total of $112,500,000 (£40,000,000) over and above the $37,500,000 already agreed to.
S.A. Airways and Accepted International Standards for Civil Aviation *XXI. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) whether the South African Airways follows the internationally accepted interpretation of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s standards in regard to the operation of the Airways’ international passenger service; if not, (a) in what respects does the South African practice deviate from that interpretation and (b) why; and
  2. (2) whether any changes have been made in the practice of the South African Airways since the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the Boeing crash at Nairobi on 30 October was submitted; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) and (b) Fall away.
  2. (2) No; South African Airways already complies with the highest standards in the operation of its international passenger services.

Mr. Speaker, this question of course refers to the wheels of landing of the Boeing at Nairobi recently and in view of the public interest in this matter I want to give additional information to hon. members:

With regard to part (1) of the question, as stated in the Press statement issued by the Minister on 17 January 1961, the findings of the Commission of Inquiry do not reflect on the basic soundness of the normal operation procedures of South African Airways.

The S.A. Airways’ operations are governed by the Union Air Navigation Regulations. As party to the Chicago Convention, the Union follows the mandatory international practices, which are set out in “Standards” in annexes to the Convention. These annexes also contain “recommended practices ”, which are not mandatory. Annex 6 of the Convention contains international standards and recommended practices for the operation of aircraft on international commercial air transportation. South African Airways follows these I.C.A.O. standards in regard to flight operations implicitly. The recommended practices set out in this annex are also followed by S.A. Airways. The requirements in respect of oxygen on aircraft imposed in terms of the Union Air Navigation Regulations are more exacting than those laid down in the I.C.A.O. standards. S.A. Airways complies with the more exact requirement.

Concerning part (2) of the question, it may be added by way of explanation that the laws of the various countries, including Kenya, require an airline operator to file so-called “weather minima” for aerodromes at which he calls. Such weather minima for landing may be expressed either in terms of cloud-base height or what is called “critical height ”. There is as yet no internationally binding definition of the term “critical height ”, but there may be said to be an international conception based on recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organization whereby “critical height” is treated as the height above ground at which an approach to land must be discontinued unless the pilot then has adequate visual reference to the ground. This definition has not, however, been embodied in the Union Air Navigation Regulations (which do not prescribe aerodrome “weather minima” at all), nor does it form part of the laws of Kenya in relation to aircraft not registered in that colony.

The decision as to what the “critical height” at a particular aerodrome for a particular aircraft type should be is entirely the responsibility of the airline operator, subject to his obligation to notify this height to the local aeronautical authorities, where so required.

The general rule observed by S.A. Airways was and is that a pilot should not continue his approach below the “critical height ”, unless he is satisfied by visual reference to the ground and information as to the effective runway visibility that it would be safe to do so.

Nevertheless, it is accepted that at aerodromes such as Nairobi, where precision-landing aids do not exist and where the weather minima had been established at a high level (as was the case at Nairobi), there could be circumstances that would justify a pilot in descending below the “critical height” on his approach, notwithstanding that for the time being he might have no visual contact with the ground. Such circumstances would generally be associated with rapidly changing weather conditions and would be considered to be present where, having regard to (a) the pilot’s familiarity with the aerodrome and the surrounding terrain, (b) the extent of his visual observation of the ground during his descent, (c) the nature of the most recent aerodrome weather report received by him and (d) the experience of other aircraft just ahead of him, the pilot had good and sufficient reasons for feeling confident that he would in good time and at a safe altitude obtain sufficient visual reference to the ground to enable a safe landing to be made. On no account, however, were pilots permitted to descend below the local “obstacle clearance limit” without having adequate visual contact with the ground.

In allowing its pilots to exercise a measure of discretion as described above, South African Airways was not in breach of any international agreement by which the Union of South Africa is bound or which it has incorporated into its own air navigation regulations.

However, in order to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding between it and the East African authorities as to what its interpretation of a weather minimum, expressed in terms of “critical height” is, South African Airways decided to lower its critical height for the Boeing 707 at Nairobi from 600 feet to 400 feet as it was entitled to do, and at the same time to treat the lower height as a definite “break-off” height by eliminating the discretion which pilots had previously enjoyed. The revised critical height was notified to and accepted by the East African authorities before the report of the Court of Inquiry was made public.

Tests for Cracks in Wing Structure of Viscounts *XXII. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether any tests for cracks in the wings and fuselages of aircraft had been carried out by the South African Airways: if so, (a) what was the nature of (i) the tests and (ii) the testing equipment used and (b) what were the results; if not,
  2. (2) whether his attention has been drawn to Press reports of cracks in the wings and fuselages of certain aircraft used by another airways service in Africa; and
  3. (3) whether he can give an assurance that it is unnecessary to have aircraft of the same make used by the South African Airways tested for similar defects.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes; as a result of a report received from the manufacturers, tests are being carried out on Viscount aircraft.
    1. (a) (i) To determine whether cracks have occurred in certain defined parts of the wing structure and whether these are such as to require rectification action.
      1. (ii) Ultrasonic crack-detection equipment approved by the aircraft manufacturers.
    2. (b) Three aircraft have so far been checked but no defects have been detected. Testing of the remaining four aircraft will be completed by 14 February 1961.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) Falls away.
Names and Size of Regional Bantu Townships *XXIII. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (a) What are the names of the large regional townships in the Bantu areas referred to in his statement of 13 December 1960,
  2. (b) where are they situated and
  3. (c) what is the estimated population of each.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (a) Names have not yet been allocated to the various regional Bantu townships.
  2. (b) Regional townships are envisaged at
    1. (i) Molitsi’s location north-west of and close to Pietersburg.
    2. (ii) Mayeakgoro location one mile west of Vaalharts irrigation scheme, Taung district.
    3. (iii) Selosesha north-west of and close to Thaba ’Nchu.
    4. (iv) Duck Ponds four miles east of Newcastle, Natal.
    5. (v) In the Ciskei at a place still to be selected.
  3. (c) The estimated population of each of these towns will be:
    1. (i) Molitsi—5,000 families.
    2. (ii) Mayeakgoro—3,000 families.
    3. (iii) Selosesha—1,500 to 2,000 families.
    4. (iv) Duck Ponds—5,000 to 6,000 families.
    5. (v) Ciskei—5,000 to 6,000 families.
*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the figures mentioned by him under (c) have reference to the present population of those townships or to the estimated future population?

*The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

No, it is not the present population but the estimated future populations.

Sale of Gold Bars Outside the Sterling Area *XXIV. Mr. PLEWMAN

asked the Minister of Finance:

  1. (1) (a) How many sales of 400-ounce gold bars by the South African Reserve Bank to overseas buyers resident outside the sterling area took place during the 12 months ended 31 December 1960, and
    1. (b) how much of the sums realized were paid or are payable in (i) dollars, (ii) sterling and (iii) other currency;
  2. (2) (a) how many sales of kilogram bar-gold took place with the concurrence of the Treasury to approved buyers outside the sterling area during the same period, and
    1. (b) how much of the sums realized were paid or are payable in (i) dollars, (ii) sterling and (iii) other currency;
  3. (3) how many of the transactions referred to in (1) and (2) involved the issue of gold certificates (a) in the Union and (b) elsewhere; and
  4. (4) what was (a) the minimum and (b) the maximum price of gold per fine ounce realized in respect of the transactions referred to in (1) and (2).
The MINISTER OF FINANCE:
  1. (1) (a) 78 transactions.
    1. (b) (i) U.S.A. $56,733,000.
      1. (ii) £48,555,000.
      2. (iii) Nil.
  2. (2) (a) 10 transactions.
    1. (b) (i) $12,129,000.
      1. (ii) Nil.
      2. (iii) Nil.
  3. (3) (a) Nil.
    1. (b) Unknown.
  4. (4) (a) 249/6½ (Two hundred and forty-nine shillings and six and a half pennies).
    1. (b) 259/8½ (Two hundred and fifty-nine shillings and eight and a half pennies).
Operations of Bantu Investment Corporation *XXV. Mr. PLEWMAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether any increase in the share capital of the Bantu Investment Corporation of South Africa, Limited, has been made in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, 1959; if so, (a) when and (b) to what extent;
  2. (2) whether any changes have been made in the personnel of the board of the Corporation since 26 January 1960; if so, (a) what are the changes and (b) what are the names and main occupations of the new appointees to the board; and
  3. (3) (a) what was the amount of the profit or loss of the Corporation for the first 12 months of business, (b) what sums of money were applied by the Corporation during this period for (i) the extension of existing, and (ii) the establishment of new, industrial, financial or other undertakings and (c) how many transactions were involved under each of these heads?
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) No.
    1. (a) and (b) Fall away.
  2. (2) Yes.
    1. (a) Mr. C. B. Young resigned from the board of directors after his appointment as Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development.
    2. (b) There are no other changes.
  3. (3) (a) For the nine months ended 31 March 1960 (which is also the end of the Corporation’s financial year), financial statements reflected a profit of £6,897.
    1. (b) (i) £32,300 and
      1. (ii) £93,500. These grants were all made during 1960.
    2. (c) 44 in respect of (i) and 22 in respect of (ii).

Due to the fact that administrative personnel had to be appointed first the Corporation only commenced granting financial aid actively early in 1960.

*XXVI. Mr. LAWRENCE

—Reply standing over.

*XXVII. Mr. LAWRENCE

—Reply standing over.

Press Facilities in Regard to Pondoland and Adjacent Areas *XXVlII. Mr. LAWRENCE

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether any representatives of the Press have been permitted to enter the districts of Bizana, Lusikisiki, Tabankulu, Flagstaff and Mount Ayliff since the emergency regulations were introduced in order to report on the situation there and if not
  2. (2) whether members of his Department were authorized to make public statements on the activities of the police and military forces; if so, which members.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Yes. Their activities have, however, been restricted to the reporting of court cases only. A number of Pressmen also accompanied the Secretary-General of the United Nations during his tour of the area.
  2. (2) Statements by the Chief Information Officer of the Department on matters concerning the police and military operations in the area are made after consultation between the Departments concerned.
Participation by I.D.C. in Retail Undertakings *XXIX. Mr. PLEWMAN

asked the Minister of Economic Affairs:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Financial Mail of 20 January 1961, that the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited, together with three other registered companies, has acquired a substantial financial interest in a chain of retail shoe shops in the Union; and
  2. (2) whether he can give an assurance that, having regard to the provisions of paragraph (c) of Section 5 of Act No. 22 of 1940, the Corporation is not required to provide an unduly large proportion of the capital necessary for the deal; and, if so, what is the proportion of the capital so provided.
The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:
  1. (1) Yes. In the furtherance of its objects, as set out in Section 3 (b) of the Industrial Development Act, 1940, the Industrial Development Corporation has participated in an offer to the existing shareholders of W. M. Cuthbert & Co. Ltd.; and
  2. (2) yes. The Industrial Development Corporation limits its interest in any scheme to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total capital required, except in cases where it acts as underwriter to a public issue. Normally, however, the Corporation prefers to hold an interest not exceeding one half of the shareholders’ interest, in other words, not more than 33⅓ per cent of the total capital requirements of an undertaking. In the case in point the Corporation’s potential participation is lower than this figure.
All Population Groups in Favour of Commonwealth Membership *XXX. Mr. TUCKER

asked the Prime Minister:

Whether he intends to take any steps to ascertain the views of the Coloured, Bantu and other peoples of the Union in regard to the Union’s Commonwealth membership in the future; if so, what steps.

The PRIME MINISTER:

No. No doubt, however, exists to-day that all population groups would prefer membership if that can be retained.

Magistrate Detained by Members of the S.A. Police *XXXI. Mr. J. A. L. BASSON

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether, as reported in the Press, a magistrate was detained or prevented from leaving his office by a member or members of the South African Police during 1960; if so, (a) on whose authority and (b) for what reasons did the policeman or policemen take such action;
  2. (2) whether any compensation has been paid to the magistrate; if so, what amount;
  3. (3) whether any disciplinary action was taken against the policeman or policemen concerned; if so, what action; if not, why not;
  4. (4) whether any portion of the compensation paid to the magistrate was recovered from the policeman or policemen concerned; if so, what amount;
  5. (5) whether the policeman or any of the policemen concerned have been transferred; and
  6. (6) (a) what were the grades of the policemen concerned at the time of the incident and (b) what are their present grades.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes, on 2 October 1959.
    1. (a) On their own responsibility.
    2. (b) Because they were under the impression that the magistrate had acted mala fide by issuing a warrant for the detention of a fellow member of the force who refused as a witness to answer a question.
  2. (2) Yes. £1,500.
  3. (3) Yes. They were tried departmentally and convicted.
  4. (4) No.
  5. (5) Yes. All of them.
  6. (6) (a) Headconstable, Detective Sergeant, Sergeant and Detective Constable.
    1. (b) As for 6 (a).
*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether any punishment was meted out to these police officials?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That does not arise from the reply.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that my additional question has reference to para. (3) of the question.

Schooling Facilities for Coloured Children *XXXII. Mr. HOLLAND

asked the Acting Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to reports in the Press in which it is alleged that adequate schooling facilities are not available for Coloured children and that they are being refused admittance owing to lack of accommodation; and
  2. (2) whether it is the intention of the Department of Coloured Affairs to take steps, in collaboration with other Departments of State and the provincial authorities, to ensure that adequate schooling facilities are made available; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) The matter is at this stage solely within the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Administration.
Compulsory Education for Coloured Children *XXXIII. Mr. HOLLAND

asked the Acting Minister of the Interior:

Whether the Department of Coloured Affairs will take steps, in collaboration with the provincial authorities, to facilitate the introduction of compulsory education for Coloured children; and, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The matter is at this stage solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial administrations. As far as the Cape Provincial Administration is concerned, reference should be had to the provisions of the Education Ordinance, No. 20 of 1956.

Industrial Training Facilities for Coloured Juveniles *XXXIV. Mr. HOLLAND

asked the Acting Minister of the Interior:

What facilities are being provided by the Government for the industrial training of Coloured juveniles.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Under the Department of Coloured Affairs technical training is provided for Coloured children in three reform schools and an industrial school administered by the Department under the provisions of the Children’s Act.

The Department also subsidizes continuation classes which provide for the training of Coloured apprentices in trade theory. The technical colleges at Cape Town and Pietermaritzburg also provide training for Coloured apprentices.

Vocational education falls under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but it has already been decided to make the Department of Coloured Affairs responsible for all vocational education for Coloured persons. Transfer of such responsibility has not yet taken place but the Department of Coloured Affairs has already taken steps to establish a Technical High School at Athlone, Cape, for Coloured children. The necessary ground has already been obtained and the whole project is now in the planning stage.

Visit by Minister to Bantu Areas of S.W.A. *XXXV. Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) How many official visits he has paid to the Bantu areas of South West Africa during the past two years;
  2. (2) which representatives of the Press accompanied him on each occasion and which newspapers did they represent; and
  3. (3) whether representatives of newspapers in South West Africa were afforded the opportunity of accompanying the tours on any of these occasions; if so, what what were their names and what newspapers did they represent; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) One.
  2. (2) A group of journalists accompanied me on the tour. All arrangements in connection with the matter were made by the South African Information Service and not by my Department.
  3. (3) Falls away.
Erection of Broadcasting Station in S.W.A. *XXXVI. Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether the Government intends to erect a broadcasting station in South West Africa in the near future; if so, when; and, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

Before decision can be reached in regard to the erection of a broadcasting station in South West Africa, certain important data have to be obtained by means of surveys, tests and investigations in the territory. The matter is at present receiving attention.

No Application for Commercial Radio Station in S.W.A. *XXXVII. Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether he has received any applications for permission to erect a commercial radio station in South West Africa; if so, from whom;
  2. (2) whether such application or applications were recommended by the Administration of South West Africa for approval; and
  3. (3) whether such application or applications have been refused; if so, why.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) No; and
  2. (2) and (3) fall away.
Official Residences for Commissioners-General *XXXVIII. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether Commissioners-General are provided with official residences; if so, (a) where is each residence situated and (b) what was the cost of (i) each residence and (ii) furnishing each residence; and
  2. (2) whether the provision of further residences is contemplated; if so; (a) where and (b) what is the estimated cost of each.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Three residences have been provided, namely at Pietersburg and Ladybrand, where private houses have been hired, and at Umtata, where a house intended for the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and costing £5,870 has been made available. Furniture costing approximately £1,949 and £2,430 has been supplied at Umtata and Ladybrand respectively.
  2. (2) Permanent accommodation is contemplated at Turfloop, Mafeking, Nongoma, Umtata, Ficksburg and Sibasa. Details of costs cannot be furnished at this stage.
Official Cars for Commissioners-General *XXXIX. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Education and Development:

  1. (1) Whether official motor-cars have been provided for the use of Commissioners-General; if so, (a) how many and (b) what is the (i) make and (ii) cost of each vehicle; and
  2. (2) whether the provision of further motor vehicles for Commissioners-General is contemplated; if so, (a) how many and (b) what is the (i) make and (ii) estimated cost of each.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) Five.
    2. (b) Four Fairlanes at £848 each and one Pontiac at £909 10s.
  2. (2) No, except for replacements in due course.
Discussion of Reports on Langa, Etc. *XL. Dr. STEYTLER

asked the Prime Minister:

Whether it is the intention of the Government to make time available for a discussion in Parliament of the reports of the Commissions of Inquiry into the incidents at Langa and at Sharpeville and Vanderbijlpark on 21 March 1960; and, if not, why not.

The PRIME MINISTER:

No. There has been and will be ample opportunity, for example during the debate on the Motion of No-Confidence, the Budget debate or when the various Votes are dealt with, to discuss these questions.

Inquiry into Root Causes of Disturbances *XLI. Dr. STEYTLER

asked the Prime Minister:

Whether he has given further consideration to the desirability of appointing a special commission of inquiry to investigate the root causes of the unrest which led to the disturbances at Sharpeville and Langa last year; and, if not, why not.

The PRIME MINISTER:

No. As previously indicated, the Treason Trial is concerned to a large extent with root causes of the same kind.

Census Figures for Distribution of Bantu Population *XLII. Mr. VAN RYNEVELD

asked the Minister of the Interior:

What were the 1951 and the 1960 census figures, respectively, for Bantu in (a) urban areas, (b) Bantu areas and (c) rural areas other than Bantu areas.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

1951 Census Figures:

  1. (a) 2,329,000,
  2. (b) 3,307,000,
  3. (c) 2,924,000.

1960 Census Figures:

  1. (a) 3,275,000 (this figure is preliminary),
  2. (b) Not yet available.
  3. (c) Not yet available.

For the information of the hon. member I may add that, according to the 1951 and 1960 census figures the number of Bantu in non-urban areas were, respectively, 6,231,000 and 7,533,000 (the last figure is preliminary).

Bishop Reeves Not Allowed in the Union *XLIII. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

Whether he intends to allow the Bishop of Johannesburg to return to South Africa; and if not, why not.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It is presumed that the hon. member refers to Bishop Ambrose Reeves. If this is so, I wish to inform the hon. member that I do not intend to allow the Bishop to enter South Africa for the reason that it is considered not to be in the public interest to do so.

Consideration of Banning “Shooting at Sharpeville ” *XLIV. Mrs. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

Whether it is his intention to raise the ban on the sale of the book written by the Bishop of Johannesburg on the incidents at Sharpeville; and, if not, why not.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It is presumed that the hon. member refers to the book, “Shooting at Sharpeville—The Agony of South Africa”, written by Bishop Ambrose Reeves. If this is so, I have to state that the prohibition of the importation and distribution of this book in the Union is still under consideration.

Report of the Press Commission

The MINISTER OF LANDS replied to Question No. *II by Dr. D. L. Smit, standing over from 24 January:

Question:
  1. (1) Whether the Press Commission has submitted its report; if not,
  2. (2) (a) what is the reason for the delay and
    1. (b) when is it expected that the report will be available; and
  3. (3) (a) what is the total cost of the Commission to date and
    1. (b) what is the estimated cost of completing its work.
Reply:
  1. (1) No, notwithstanding expectations communicated last year to the Minister by the Chairman of the Commission and which were conveyed to the House.
  2. (2) (a) The Commission itself must say that. The Chairman is being asked for information on his views, which will be laid upon the Table as soon as possible.
    1. (b) Since previous statements, based on expectations after consultation with the Chairman of the Commission, often proved to be incorrect, the Minister prefers not to endeavour to obtain again provisional indications, prompted by questions in Parliament, from the Chairman of the Commission. The Government has, however, now again, as often in the past, urgently requested that the part already completed be made available for tabling, and indeed this time in April 1961. The Government cannot, however, encroach upon the position of a Governor-General’s Commission by making demands and has as yet not been informed of the Commission’s decision regarding this request.
  3. (3) (a) £89,400. This figure is subject to confirmation.
    1. (b) Having regard to 2 (b), a reply is not possible.
Press Commission and Press Messages Sent Overseas

The MINISTER OF LANDS replied to Question No. *XII by Mr. Cope, standing over from 24 January:

Question:
  1. (1) Whether the Press Commission has at any time requested the Post Office to forward to it all Press messages filed in the Union for transmission overseas; if so, for what purpose; and
  2. (2) whether Press messages are still being forwarded to the Commission; if not, when was the practice discontinued.
Reply:

(1) and (2) For obvious reasons the Government does not interfere with the domestic affairs or procedures of a Judicial Commission of Inquiry.

Amounts Spent on Development of Bantu Reserves

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT replied to Question No. *XIII by Mr. van Ryneveld, standing over from 24 January:

Question:
  1. (1) What was (a) the total amount spent during the financial year 1959-60 and (b) the estimated amount to be spent during the financial year 1960-1, on the development of the Native Reserves; and
  2. (2) what are the amounts in respect of (a) the establishment of Bantu villages, (b) afforestation schemes, (c) soil reclamation, (d) irrigation schemes and (e) secondary and tertiary development.
Reply:
  1. (1) (a) £1,925,495.
    1. (b) £1,405,000.
  2. (2) (a) £4,292.
    1. (b) £749,503.
    2. (c) £146,249.
    3. (d) £325,544.
    4. (e) £53,930.
  3. (3) (a) £227,000.
    1. (b) £814,000.
    2. (c) £148,600.
    3. (d) £293,000.
    4. (e) £40,000.

Actual expenditure incurred for 1959-60 on development and reclamation services in the Bantu areas was £3,693,777 and the estimated expenditure on these services for 1960-1 is £3,630,140.

These amounts do not include expenditure incurred or funds made available for the purchase of land by the South African Native Trust during the periods mentioned.

For written reply:

Railways: Monthly Surpluses I. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

What was the profit or loss on the South African Railways for each month of the present financial year up to the latest date for which preliminary figures are available.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The results of working the South African Railways for the eight months April to November, 1960, reflect a total surplus of £8,631,168, made up as follows—

April

£ 34,247

May

£ 515,767

June

£ 736,975

July

£1,272,679

August

£1,604,918

September

£1,291,862

October

£1,895,674

November

£1,279,046

Banning of Certain Books by Bertrand Russell and D. H. Lawrence II. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of the Interior:

Whether any books by Bertrand Russell, D. H. Lawrence and James Joyce are at present banned in the Union; and, if so, (a) which books and (b) what is the specific reason for the ban in each case.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (a) Yes, the importation and the distribution in the Union of the books “Why I am not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell and “Aaron’s Rod” and “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” by D. H. Lawrence are prohibited.
  2. (b) The Board of Censors has found the said books to be objectionable in terms of Section 21 of the Customs Act, 1944, as later included in the Customs Act, 1955, and the Entertainments (Censorship) Act, 1931.

I wish to draw the honourable member’s attention thereto that the above information is not complete because publications, the importation and distribution in the Union of which are prohibited, are indexed according to the titles thereof, and not according to the names of the authors thereof. If the honourable member could furnish the titles of other books by Bertrand Russell and D. H. Lawrence and of any books by James Joyce, the importation and distribution in the Union of which are prohibited, an attempt will be made to furnish the required information in respect thereof.

Loans Granted by the Bantu Investment Corporation III. Mr. VAN RYNEVELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

Whether he will furnish a list of the persons to whom loans have been granted by the Bantu Investment Corporation, together with the amount of the loan and the nature of the undertaking in each case.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

No. The loans made are private transactions and unless there are sound reasons I do not feel called upon to make them public.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE The MINISTER OF LANDS:

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I should like to make a statement with regard to the work next week and certain other matters.

It is proposed to start on Monday with the Constitution Bill, and we will go on with it until the second reading has been passed. If there should be any further time available next week we will handle legislation which I will put on the Order Paper for Monday, so that hon. members will know on Monday which legislation we propose dealing with.

I should also like to point out to hon. members that we will be starting with Evening Sittings as from next Monday.

With regard to the Railway Budget, the Budget Speech will be delivered on 8 March and we will have the debate on 13 and 14 March. The Committee Stage will be taken on 15 and 16 March and the second reading on 20 March, and the third reading on 21 March.

With regard to the main Estimates, the Minister of Finance will deliver his Budget speech on 15 March and the debate will be on 22, 23, 27 and 28 March, and the Minister will reply on 29 March. The Part Appropriation will not be taken before Monday, 13 February.

The first recess will be from Wednesday, 29 March, on which day we hope to adjourn round about six o’clock, until Wednesday, 5 April, when Parliament will resume. The second recess will start on Friday, 26 May, and the House will resume on Monday, 5 June.

JOINT SESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY CATERING

Mr. SPEAKER communicated the following Message from the Honourable the Senate:

The Senate begs to acquaint the Honourable the House of Assembly that the Senate has appointed a Committee of five members to join with a Committee of the Honourable the House of Assembly as a Joint Sessional Committee for the purpose of the superintendence and management of Parliamentary Catering.

The Senate requests that the Honourable House of Assembly will be pleased to appoint an equal number of members to serve with the members of the Senate, four members of such Joint Sessional Committee to form a quorum, viz. two members of each House.

Message considered.

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

I move as an unopposed motion.

  1. (1) That the following members constitute the Committee of the House of Assembly, viz. the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Gay, Mr. Lawrence and Dr. J. H. Steyn; and
  2. (2) that two members of each House form a quorum of the Joint Sessional Committee.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

NO-CONFIDENCE

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion of no-confidence, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Sir de Villiers Graaff, upon which amendments had been moved by the Prime Minister and by Dr. Steytler, adjourned on 26 January, resumed.]

*Mr. F. S. STEYN:

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was saying that South Africa’s international position can only be eased if we can dispel the illusion that this country will perhaps capitulate in regard to its policy of separate development. How can we dispel that illusion? There are really only two attitudes and lines of behaviour to be adopted by the people of the country which can dispel that illusion. The first attitude and line of behaviour is obviously to support our policy of separate development with renewed energy and devotion and understanding. When I say with renewed energy I mean this, Mr. Speaker, that the concept of separate development was a national idea emanating from the people, but particularly in the past 12 years it was made systematic and it was developed into something more than the vague idea which always existed in the minds of the people. And now the people must again accept this systematized idea as national policy until our concept of separate development is no longer seen as a political policy but as a national policy. By devotion I mean the things which the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) indicated last night, that we must realize that the implementation of the policy of separate development is no minor matter, nor is it an incidental undertaking which is part of the administration of the State, but that it is an enormous task which will affect all facets of our national and our economic life; that it will demand an extremely high measure of adaptation from every South African citizen, and that it can be done only at high cost, not only in money but in inventiveness and everything which a nation can offer. But if there is that devotion we will accept this policy as a national one and explain it to the world. Finally, in regard to realization—here I want to cross swords somewhat with the hon. member tor Germiston (District) and incidentally also give a reply to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). The first criticism expressed is in regard to the very slow progress made, and reference has been made to the latest preliminary census report. I also want to point out that a very prominent actuary, Mr. Laurie, considers that perhaps a mistake involving hundreds of thousands may have slipped into the preliminary figures. I do not want to express any opinion in that regard, but we must accept that this is a preliminary figure which should be regarded critically. And then the slow progress! What must he done along this road? In the first place the national idea had to be streamlined into a policy. Administrative preparations had to be made for the implementation of this policy. Allow me to mention just one example of the tremendously long period that is required for preparation. The preparation for the development of industries on the borders of the Bantu homelands is an enormous task. A mass of work has been done in the past two and a half years. Much has been achieved. If hon. members take the trouble to make inquiries from the officials entrusted with this task, they will be astonished at the volume of work which has already been completed. But it takes a certain minimum time to make these administrative preparations. And, most important of all, Sir, there has been slow progress because both White and non-White South Africa gradually had to become accustomed to the idea and the consequences of a complete policy of separate development. And in regard to the concept, Mr. Speaker—also in the sense that we must realize that there is a deep-rooted difference between the application of the policy of separate development as far as the Coloureds and the Bantu are concerned We just cannot confuse the two concepts. The Coloureds form part of the civilized community in Africa who face the common threat of Pan-Africanism— they are like us. Together with us they also share in a common Christian culture. They permanently share the White territories. Therefore the apartheid between the White man and the Coloured remains a functional separation, remains a separate stream inside one political and geographical area. But the main characteristic of the separate development between the White man and the Bantu is a political-geographical partition, and from that certain functional exceptions are made as, e.g., in regard to the use of migratory labour. Therefore, in principle there are different approaches, e.g in regard to local government by the Bantu. We should not confuse these concepts.

The final point on which I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Germiston (District) is this. We must not over-estimate the absoluteness of the geographical partition between White and Bantu. Certainly we should not be misled into under-estimating it and considering it less important. But we must accept the tact that, if the separation in principle has been established, then without political disadvantages there can be a substantial exchange of labour by the Bantu in the White area. And if we accept these ideas, if we accept this policy of separate development as a national policy, if we dedicate ourselves to it with a consciousness of the sacrifices it will demand, and if we regard it with understanding, with realism, then I believe we will make a contribution towards convincing the world that we will not capitulate.

But the second thing we have to do is that we as a nation should unanimously inform the world that we will rather die than share the political control of White South Africa with the Bantu. And, Mr. Speaker, I make this radical statement because we are not dealing here with a local problem. The relationship between the White man and the Bantu in South Africa is a facet of a continental struggle, and the tendency of this continental struggle is being evolved not by our own Bantu but by the Pan-African movement which strives for Blark supremacy. We need not go more deeply into these dangers. We can find enough examples of it. I just want to state the proposition that in regard to this aspect the world should know that our policy is absolute. It is not anti-Black. We must give the Bantu the opportunity to build up a new civilization from the roots of his own civilization. We want to give them the opportunity to become the aristocrats of Africa in the economic sense. But we say, in terms of the unity referred to in our national motto, and with the humility of a small nation, and with the devoted determination of a nation which has faith, that although superior numbers may conquer us, at this stage we shall not surrender; and that we shall retain our heritage whether we live or die here, but we will not fritter away our heritage.

Mr. Speaker, my reproach to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that by means of his policy and his party he is undermining fellow-South Africans like us. Those Progressives are the fruits of the policy of the United Party—those who have become so demoralized that they are rushing to meet defeat and want to accept it as their own choice.

Mr. Speaker, one should perhaps conclude on a lighter note. The hon. member for Jeppes has said that we are fleeing from the lion of a multi-racial state to the precipice of apartheid. The French writer Rabelais, apart from the two well-known giants about which he wrote, also wrote about a small comical character—somebody who always took the wrong decisions and made mistakes. That was the character Gribouille. In his fear of an approaching rainstorm he decided rather to drown himself in the river. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing. He is so afraid of the rainstorm and the storm-wind blowing over Africa that he now advises South Africa: Rather drown yourselves immediately in the stream of integration. That is what the hon. member showed himself to be in this debate—the Gribouille of South Africa.

Mr. GAY:

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me for not following him in the delightful field of fantasy over which he has wandered for the greater part of his speech. My time being limited I propose to devote it to another matter altogether.

The motion of no-confidence moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was very largely based on the failure of the Government to promote racial harmony and internal peace, and the consequences that have flowed from that failure. This has so many facets that to dream of putting any confidence at all in this Government at this stage would be just as fantastic as some of the suggestions we have just been listening to from the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). The Government’s complete failure in this important aspect of our national life has unhappily set in train a series of consequences which not only prevent the building up of racial harmony and all that goes with it such as the general prosperity of the country and its people, but it has now reached a stage in which it is placing the national security of South Africa in jeopardy. The United Party has again and again warned the Government and the Prime Minister of the dangerous position in which he was placing this country by his impractical colour policies and his general attitude towards world opinion. We have warned him of the growing risk he is building up for every South African family irrespective of what their political affiliations might be. Yet step by step, in order to bolster up these impractical and often completely unnecessary new laws, the Prime Minister has been compelled to impose drastic controls and restrictions upon the rights and privileges of practically every person, White and non-White, in South Africa; restrictions far beyond anything that this country has ever seen before. I do not propose to cover that field this afternoon. It was very amply and well covered yesterday by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. du P. Basson), I would only add this: I commend the list of restrictions and controls that that hon. member put before the House as something that should be studied by the people outside this House. It would probably open the eyes of many of them. Up to now these restrictions and controls have dealt mainly with individuals or groups of individuals, although the effects of these controls have been felt by the nation as a whole. They have also affected our good reputation overseas. Nevertheless, up to now they were in general limited to individuals and individual groups. Now, however, we have entered into a new and even more dangerous phase of this expanding dictatorship, which will affect not only individuals themselves but the security of the country as a whole.

I want to turn now to the far-reaching and dangerous effects being caused by the failure of this Government’s colour policy. In order to meet the consequences of its failure the Government has found it necessary to recast the entire structure and to re-assess the objects of the Union’s defence system. Until the days of this Government, the Union’s defence organization carried, in the main, a two-fold responsibility, (a) the preservation of internal security where this fell beyond the scope and power of the regular Police Force, which in itself comprises a very valuable section of the Union’s defence organization, (b) The second function was to defend South Africa against external aggression from wherever it came. Both of these functions, but more particularly the second one, have become of tremendous importance under prevailing international conditions, and particularly when one considers the changing events taking place on the Continent of Africa to the north of us. But what do we find? We find that in order to cope with the internal unrest which has been developing in recent years—unrest for which the extreme and impractical policies of the Prime Minister must be held to share the blame— the Government has found it necessary to virtually abandon any defence against external aggression as far as the organization of the Defence Force is concerned. Other than our naval defence, which is developing very well as part of a combined defence system, the Government has had to divert our entire Defence Force organization into what really amounts to a reserve auxiliary Police Force and riot squad. No one questions the need of this Government—or indeed of any Government—to maintain law and order. That goes without saying. But we claim that the most effective way to preserve law and order is to remove the irritations and frustrations which help discontent to breed. To prevent rather than suppress. That, surely, is the statesmanlike way to deal with it.

No one questions the tremendous changes which have taken place in the strategic outlook in Africa to-day; changes which have taken place following the tremendous changes brought about in world strategy generally. But these events only go to stress the greater need for a sound, combined external defence policy; defence against external aggression. More than ever before that is now necessary. The hon. the Minister of Defence made it quite clear that the Government policy as it exists to-day is certainly not in that direction. I want to quote a speech of the hon. the Minister as reported in the Cape Argus of 10 December as having been made in Pretoria that afternoon. The hon. the Minister there said—

In our country we have ample proof of the communistic cold war system. For that reason I am determined to build up our defences to the limits of our financial resources. South Africa is preparing to defend itself against a deathbed of ice in a cold war, but certainly also to be able to return in kind if we are attacked in a hot war.

The hon. the Minister of Defence then went on to say—

The Union’s defence organization was directed at internal security. The maintenance of that meant for him the protection of the State against any force which threatened the good order and peace within South Africa’s borders. It made no difference whether it was from without or from within.

Then a little later he went on to say—

Our military organization is not based on aggression nor at this stage to take part in a world war. I believe that it is our duty to build up our defence as a security measure for general development and as a deterrent in case some power might have ideas of forcing a different way of life upon us.

Very excellent sentiments and no one quarrels with them. I want to say outright that as a top level pronouncement on the Union’s defence policy I find the Minister’s statement not only very disconcerting but highly contradictory. It ranges our defences from South Africa dying a frozen death in a cold war to being grilled in a hot war, or we have the other alternative of turning our sons into an auxiliary Police Force. I think that the average citizen of South Africa, irrespective of his politics, agrees with my view of those three alternatives. Apparently, according to the Minister, you pay your money and take your choice, but most South Africans prefer to live their lives in a national security which rests upon good government, wise leadership and a national policy which wins for our country friends beyond our borders who can help us in case of emergency, and inside the country makes for confidence and racial harmony. With that, half the internal troubles the Minister foresees fall away. We are not enamoured of an intolerant isolationism which is winning our country the dislike of the rest of the world. Does the Minister really believe that the communist group will allow him to carry out his hot and cold policy without becoming involved in external hostilities? Have the lessons to be learnt from the Congo not yet reached the perception of this Government? The communist groups have held even the United States back from the Congo. In his amendment to the motion of my Leader, the Prime Minister has asked the House for a vote of confidence in his Government. What we want to know is what is the Government’s defence policy, if such a policy exists, in regard to any form of external aggression. Have we any agreed policy for combined defence with any other of the states that have interests in Southern Africa? Have we any effective contact with the African non-White states to the north of us who are themselves opposed to Communism? Are there any contacts aimed at developing mutual confidence and understanding between them and us? What positive steps have been taken side by side with the hon. Minister’s Internal Security Organization to meet any danger developing as the result of the Congo debacle, something which is very pertinent to the question at issue at the moment, confidence in the Government? We have the clearly expressed views of Communism to use the Congo situation to deal with Southern Africa. Mr. Khrushchev, reported as late as the 18th instant, in his recent address to the communist leaders in Moscow, made it quite clear that Communism claims credit for being behind the unrest in Africa. As he says in his speech, when they are satisfied with the hold they have developed up there, the Fascist dungeons of South Africa and Rhodesia will be smashed. I do not think we can be under any delusions as to what their object is in dealing with South Africa. This Government claims it is the arch enemy of Communism. I would like to know what action we have really taken, apart from internal security, to see that we have the friends and resources to help us when that time arrives.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

We have the Simonstown Agreement, for instance.

Mr. GAY:

That agreement is the rock on which this Government anchors all its hopes. It is a naval agreement, and from the naval side it is being well carried out with the combined resources which are being developed there. We can take pride in the South African Navy, but that agreement is not sufficient to safeguard the interests of South Africa on the landward side. We want to know what the Government is doing with regard to its land defences. I leave those questions with the hon. the Minister of Defence. When we come to deal with these aspects I want to refer for a moment to what lies at the back of it, because at the back of the bulk of our troubles with regard to defence and every other difficulty this country is experiencing, is the blind obstinacy of the Prime Minister to face facts. He has developed in this country a dictatorship almost without parallel in the history of South Africa, a dictatorship over every part of South Africa, including the people who sit on that side of the House. That is really the underlying reason for the difficulties in which we find ourselves. How can he expect us to have confidence in him and his Government when he adopts the attitude of cocking a snook at world opinion, of sacrificing the best interests of South Africa to the interests of himself and his party? Sir, the Prime Minister in his speech the other day referred to the danger of making political concessions in regard to the Coloured people. He referred to the danger that the majority of voters would force their will upon the public. Is there any example more striking than the example of that Prime Minister and his party in using their parliamentary majority—not the majority of the voters—to force their will upon the people of this country, as was done by removing the Coloured people from the Common Roll? The enlarged Senate and the High Court of Parliament? We have example after example to prove that he at least speaks from very close personal experience when he talks about a majority forcing its will upon the rest of the country. That is the trouble to-day, the domination of the country by a party which at the time had a minority of the votes and yet used its parliamentary power in order to drive wagons through every loophole they could find in the Act of Union. Only four days ago we had the last glaring example of this dictatorship, a statement made by the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party, of which Dr. Verwoerd himself is the chairman, a statement which has effectively muzzled every member of the Nationalist Party, otherwise they go. The Prime Minister has told them to toe the line, to “pack up” or to “shut up ”, and the majority will shut up.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

You misread the statement.

Mr. GAY:

No, that is what the country is suffering from, and that is what is helping to bring about the bad feeling overseas in regard to this country. Will he not see that he is sacrificing the country to his own obstinacy? Half the troubles we have could be solved if Parliament and the people of the country could turn their hands and minds to the development the country needs, instead of having to spend month after month on colour debates saying the same things over and over. Even the more enlightened members of his own party have tried to warn him and are becoming increasingly alarmed at the dangerous situation resulting from his obstinate refusal to give one inch. But he has warned them now, as well as their newspapers, to shut up or pack up; there is no place in the party for you if you do not follow my line—not the party line but my line. In fact, so badly has the ban of silence affected them that we have the astonishing spectacle to-day of the leading Nationalist paper, the Burger, in its recent leading articles in effect pleading with the United paper to attack the Prime Minister as the result of the ban of silence imposed on them by the Federal Council. They asked that we should follow up their attack on the Prime Minister because they have been shut up. Can you imagine such a position, when a powerful party has to appeal to the Opposition to do their work for them? That is what it boils down to. [Interjections.] It is difficult to find more decisive evidence of a granite dictatorship than the one Dr. Verwoerd to-day exercises over his own party. It is against that background that we on this side of the House can see no hope of having confidence in the Government while that state of affairs exists and while the members of the Government themselves are muzzled and gagged and cannot try to do anything for the country because it would mean their expulsion from the party.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member who just sat down just put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister, I shall not waste my time on him. I am rising particularly to speak on the matter raised here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely his declared labour policy, the rate for the job, but before I do that, I want to make a few general observations about the United Party’s position and that of the Progressive Party and the Nationalist Party.

We now have in this House three parties with policies pointing in only two directions. The policy of the Nationalist Party has been put very clearly in the legislation passed in this House during the past 12 years and as far as the future is concerned the legislation already passed by the Government is a very clear guide as to which course is being followed. The Progressive Party is following the directly opposite course. The one is facing north and the other is facing south. There is no doubt about the direction of the Progressive Party, namely the abandonment of all colour bars and the elimination of every difference between the races in all spheres. As far as the United Party’s direction is concerned it is described in language which indicates that the party would like to ensure the survival of the White man in this country but at the outset I already pointed out that there are different directions and if the United Party also wishes to go in a northerly direction but takes the first deviation to the left and says that in future it will always turn left it must necessarily mean that it is going in a direction opposite to that which it professes to be following. That is why we have the peculiar position of having three parties going in only two directions. The United Party’s direction becomes so obscure and unclear that even some of its erst-while greatest and most enthusiastic supporters were so befuddled about the policies which were being followed that they were compelled to leave the party, because although they say they are following a certain course they are moving in the opposite direction.

I also want to add this, that it will be a glad day in the history of South Africa—and it is something the Nationalist Party has said since it came to power in 1948—if the time arrives when there is an Opposition which criticizes Government measures from a purely South African point of view, and when there is not an Opposition which regards itself as a remnant of those troops who were at war with South Africa 60 years ago. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sometimes does things in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition which I am unable to describe as anything else but being a sin in the political and constitutional sphere. We can find no fault when criticism is levelled at us but when time and again you get the impression, as a result of the remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and under his inspiration, that they almost pray that some-catastrophe should befall South Africa, it is too much. I will say what his favourite remark is, and those words hurt me so deeply that I find it difficult to retain my respect for him as Leader of the Opposition. His favourite remark is always: “South Africa is heading for disaster ”, and in that he is loyally imitated. I am not even referring to the hon. member for Constantia. I think if there is anybody who really and truly hates every good deed of this Government it is he. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not miss any opportunity to tell the world that that is what he hopes for. Very recently he still said on a very important occasion: “And let us announce to the world, seeing that almost 99 per cent of the world is opposed to the Government because of its apartheid policy, and let us tell the United Nations and all the other nations that we are against the policy of this Government.” He speaks about patriotism but why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accuse South Africa before the nations of the world?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Why must I agree with the Government in order to be a patriot?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

If you do not agree with the Government you should accuse it before the electorate, before the tribunal of the people and not before the communists and the United Nations and the other nations. You must put your case fairly before the tribunal of the people. Let me remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of the words of the Leader of the Opposition before the 1948 election. He said to the late Gen. Smuts: “We have put our case and now we challenge you before the tribunal of the people.” And Gen. Smuts and the United Party were summoned before the tribunal of the people and the people condemned the United Party. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition his henchmen and their Press do? They do not accuse the Government before the tribunal of the people; they run first to England and get the assistance of the British Press and then they go to the United Nations and get the support of the crudest enemies of South Africa. That is the greatest, the most unforgivable sin which you can ever have in the political sphere. Let me tell the United Party this, that they have my greatest condemnation for this. If you think that the Government’s policy is wrong, go to the electorate but stay away from the enemies of South Africa. That is my accusation against the United Party. But they are the people who always say that they are South Africans. They are as little South African as they are a united party.

Now I come to my real point, the labour policy of the United Party, the rate for the job. This is a matter which has been discussed here before and the United Party has now thought fit to repeat it here. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition completely realizes what it means if instead of work reservation for certain groups you base your whole labour pattern on the basis of the rate for the job, and allow all trade unions and all skilled workers and everybody who is in the labour market and also all the office workers to understand that immediately you apply the rate for the job it must mean that the White man, the Bantu and the Coloured man will be brought together in the same trade union and at the same work bench. Before I go any further I want to say this. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has so much to say about the Coloureds who must not be forgotten has apparently forgotten that where you had the position where the rate for the job was applied the Bantu came from his territories and completely ousted the Coloured community from the labour market in Cape Town and a great portion of the Western Province. Not even the Coloured is able to maintain his position against the Native when it comes to the rate for the job. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers expect that the White man must maintain his position. The White worker lives at a high level of civilization which he has maintained through the years. To-day he does not stand back for any country of the world as far as his standard of living is concerned, not even for America. The rate for the job will mean that the White mineworker and the Bantu will have to do the same work next to each other. On the Railways and in the building industry the Bantu and the White worker will be treated on the same level. Is there anybody with any sense who will allege that it will be possible for the White worker to maintain his position in the labour market as he is able to do under work reservation at present? And the same applies to the Coloured. It is just not possible. But let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this: If he thinks that organized White labour in South Africa will ever tolerate his labour policy then he does not know the worker. The position is that the White man in order to protect his living will resort to all possible means as he has done in the past. Therefore, if we apply our policy more and more with the idea of protecting the White man we want to put the position very clearly for the benefit of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as for the benefit of those people outside who echo his words when he says that we are depriving the non-Whites of certain human rights. It is false to tell the world that we deny the Bantu and the Coloured the same rights as the Whites enjoy. No, it is this Government which for the first time has made it possible for the non-White worker to be trained, but not in competition with the Whites. In his own territory he can have the same advancement as the White worker has. Where are the Coloureds pegged by legislation? The Coloured has been ousted from his main means of existence as a result of the absence of any protective measures but the hon. member does not realize this. Do you know, Sir, what the Public Service will look like in a few years’ time unless you have these protective measures? Do these people who propagate the rate for the job think that it will apply only to workers and not to office workers? What about the offices and the Public Service? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think he will be able to mislead the office worker to think that it will not be applied to him? If you apply it to industry you will also have to apply it to the Public Service. Then it will be simply impossible for the White man to survive in this country. No, the rate for the job will then be applied and once you apply it in South Africa it is impossible for the Whites to survive. We know what they will seek their refuge in. They will immediately tell you that the White man will then have to be better qualified. As the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out, our idea of separation is vertical but they want it to be horizontal. They want a certain, number of Whites in executive positions and then you must tell the non-White that he is not allowed to have those positions. Is the United Party going to draw a line there and to mislead the Whites by saying that the Bantu will be allowed to reach a certain level but not to exceed it? That is what happened in Ghana. Years ago they applied the same policy there and said that the Natives should be trained to become skilled workmen but when they opened their eyes the same Bantus told them to clear out. Therefore I say that if you continue along that road the result of the United Party policy must lead to the same result as the policy of the Progressive Party. The only difference is that the Leader of the Progressive Party says that this is his policy and his direction while the United Party say that they are not going in that direction, but the road they are following will lead to the same thing. That is why you have this Press comment where the Rand Daily Mail tells you that you can have the direction followed by the Progressive Party but that you must first follow the road chosen by the United Party. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that this attack on the White people of South Africa took place even before Union but it was an important consideration, particularly at the time of Union. In those days the Unionist Party was in the opposition. That was a party which had the same idea as Britain, namely “no colour line ”. When General Botha came into power here, General Botha, who recognized a colour line, they aimed at the day when the Opposition, the Unionist Party, would come to power. We know what the pattern is; the Opposition of to-day is the Government of to-morrow. Thank heavens that will not apply to the Opposition we have sitting opposite us to-day. In any case, they thought that the old South African Party would remain in power for some years but that the day would arrive when the Unionists would get into power and then the time would have been right for the abandonment of all colour bars. That was the pattern which was being followed. The pattern was: Make them poor. And from that day this policy was applied to impoverish the South African people with the idea that it would then forget its colour consciousness. Make them poor and drive them to the mines where they would be forced to become the comrades of the Bantu and then their colour consciousness would disappear. Did it succeed? It succeeded to the extent that in 1924, after 14 years, there were 300,000 poor Whites in South Africa. Pay them 3d. per lb. for their wool; give 3s. 3d. for their maize—that was the policy then. The White masses were driven from their farms and were sent to the mines. There they landed in the midst of the ranks of the poor Whites—that is how efficiently that policy worked. But it was of course never dreamed that a new movement would result, namely the Nationalist Party which took up the case of those people. Thank Heaven, a new movement came into being and a new leader arrived, the late General Hertzog and anybody who knows the A.B.C. of South African politics will remember that the protection of White South Africa in the labour market was one of the cardinal points in the policy of General Hertzog. Very soon after he came to power he passed Act No. 26 of 1925, the first Colour Bar Act passed in South Africa, for the protection of the White mine-workers. The basis of the Colour Bar of 1925 later had to be extended and it still has to be extended daily even now. That was of course directly in conflict with the ideas and the plans which were made at the time of Union. At the time of Union the idea was that the opposition, the Unionists, would take over later and that it would then be an easy task for them to apply their policy when there would have been hundreds of thousands of poor Whites. There were 300,000 poor Whites at the time and they expected that there would be many more. But the history of South Africa continued and the miracle happened; they succeeded in their aims; a process of impoverishment did take place but there is one thing in which they did not succeed. The poorest White man in South Africa retained his self-respect and, strengthened by the suffering which he experienced in the days of the crucible, he revived. As a result of that, eventually the Nationalist Party came into being and the movement came forth to give protection to the White man of this country. That idea spread and it grew and to-day the one protective measure after the other is taken to ensure the position of the White worker because it is his people who are sitting on this side of the House. In those days the idea was to impoverish the White worker and to degrade and demoralize him so that it would be impossible to rehabilitate him. That attempt did not succeed. Those people were rehabilitated and to-day they are not only the rulers of South Africa but they follow a policy which enables them, in spite of the fact that they have to face the cruelest enemies at the United Nations and in spite of the attacks by the local Opposition which is acting in a treasonable way, they are able to maintain themselves. Mr. Speaker, if this is not a miracle in the history of a young nation which had to struggle so hard then I do not know what must be regarded as a miracle. Now at this stage we get people like the Opposition who do not oppose any measure in this House from a purely South African point of view. For this reason the day will arrive when you will see this Opposition obliterated to make way for another political organization, for another party which is prepared to view matters from a South African point of view, a party with love for South Africa and which does not represent other forces in this country. Mr. Speaker, the rate for the job is a diabolical policy, because under that policy you get an alliance between the ultra-capitalist and all the non-White groups, because they regard the non-White groups as the groups to whom they will have to pay the lowest wages. For this reason you always get this unnatural alliance. Therefore you will always find that the capitalistwho wants to exploit South Africa is in alliance with all the non-White groups because in this they see a means of bringing White South Africa to its downfall.

Dr. STEYTLER:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

If the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would only think for one moment and not hover between heaven and earth, they would realize that the non-White races and the White race do not have the same standard of living. Is it unknown to them that the Wage Board fixes wages mainly on the basis of the standard of living of people and their requirements in order to maintain that standard of living? The hon. member need not shake his head because then he is a stranger in Jerusalem. The first question the chairman of a Wage Board in South Africa asks is: What is the standard of living of the workers; what is the rent they have to pay; what are their requirements? And on that basis their wages are fixed. I am asking anybody with any intelligence: Are you going to pay a person with file living standard of a White man and a Native from the reserves the same wage for the same work? How can a person who is not completely senseless suggest such a thing? Is it any wonder that in all those constituencies where there are White workers the U.P. is disappearing more and more? It is because it is something which you cannot tolerate in South Africa. Amongst the commercial community it has been the idea in former years to impoverish the Afrikaner and in that way to force him down to the same living standard as that of the non-White. That was the pattern from 1909-10 until there were 300,000 poor Whites. And now they emerge with the new pattern and the slogan: “We must raise the wages of the Natives and lower the wages of the more highly paid White man.” That is the slogan they have now adopted.

Dr. RADFORD:

Will you explain to me what you understand by the rate for the job, because it seems that you do not understand it yourself.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

I gave the hon. member the opportunity to put a question; I did not know he was going to be so foolish or frivolous in regard to this matter. Everybody knows what rate for the job means. It simply means that for a specific class of work you pay the same wage. The term explains itself; you need not ask any questions, unless you have lost your breath swimming in Klipdrif. I have already pointed out that on the continent of Africa, where the rate for the job was applied the White man had to clear out. I have already pointed out that here in Cape Town, where rate for the job was applied, the Coloured had to clear out and if you continue applying the rate for the job you will have all your Whites ousted from industry and in the end you will have only non-Whites in your industries, and what will the position of your own people be then? Do you think we want to be a nation of shopkeepers? No, a substantial part of the Whites, particularly those of Boer heritage, believe that labour ennobles, and we do not intend running away from the labour market. We intend maintaining the position of the White man in the labour market and we are going to confirm the words of the hon. the Minister of Labour, namely, that amongst the White workers we want some of the best and hardest workers in South Africa. We want our White workers to be an example to the other nations and when we fix this high standard for ourselves, we are proud of it and we want to see it maintained. But then we also want to add at the same time that what we want for ourselves, what we want to protect for ourselves, we also want to grant and we also want to give to other racial groups, but in their own territories, because if we allow them, according to the pattern announced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to compete with the White worker in this country, then the White worker will not be able to make a living at his workbench, he will not be able to make a living in the mines and his place will be taken in the Defence Force and also in the Public Service by the non-White. This pattern we reject with all our energy and I hope that this will always remain the attitude of every White working man and woman in this country.

Dr. DE BEER:

I have always had considerable admiration for the personal self-confidence of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. V. d. Berg) who comes here repeatedly, as he has done this afternoon, and lays down doctrines in the labour field which are repudiated by the very large majority of all the trade unions in South Africa. I am for that reason all the more struck and disappointed by his complete lack of communal self-confidence, because his argument this afternoon, as I understand it, revolves again and again round a single point, that he does not believe that the European South African is capable of standing up to the competition of other races. We for our part do not share either his great confidence in his own abilities or his great lack of confidence in the abilities of his own section.

Mr. Speaker, among the many interesting and worthwhile things that have been said in this House, I would place first something that was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he said that one of the cardinal features of the position in South Africa was its urgency. It has been a matter of regret to me that that concept, that feeling of urgency which should permeate the thinking of all of us at this time, has been notably absent from this debate. We have seen, even the youngest of us, history move with bewildering rapidity, as events overtake each other almost before we have had time to grasp what is happening, and for us in South Africa, in our circumstances and at this time, to debate our problems as though we had decades to solve them, is almost more tragic than failing to debate them at all. After that statement, there are two others which have been made in this debate, to which I should like to refer in quite the opposite sense, not in the least in a sense of approval. One was the outstanding statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister himself about the wonderful peace and quiet which South Africa is enjoying. The Prime Minister, apparently feeling some need to motivate so very remarkable an utterance, said that what he meant was that after all there were a few little troubles in South Africa last year, but there have been troubles before and even bigger troubles before, and he mentioned the time when 50,000 Africans marched from Springs towards Johannesburg, and he said that compared with this, the things that had happened in South Africa in 1960 were chicken feed. Sir, at what previous time, when these troubles to which the hon. gentleman referred took place, was there a national emergency that lasted five months? At what previous time, when there were troubles in South Africa, were thousands and thousands of South African citizens put in gaol without charge and without trial? At what previous time in these troubles in South Africa, to which the Prime Minister referred, did we have the Air Force, the Army and even the Navy, too, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said, patrolling the coast of Pondoland? Is this normal; is this the kind of peace and quiet which the Prime Minister holds out for us as the sort of situation with which we ought to be content? I must say that if I required to call witnesses in my support in this matter, it was most opportune that I happened to see the leading article in the Burger this morning, because the Burger does not take the same view as the. Prime Minister. Arguing in support of certain things which the Government has done and against certain things which the Opposition has said, the Burger says—

Byna’n jaar het verstryk sedert die Swart oproer in Sharpeville en Langa, die Unie tot op die rand van rewolusionêre toestand gebring het. Baie mense is nou, heel menslik, geneig net om te vergeet presies hoe ernstig die posisie was.

The hon. the Prime Minister is apparently amongst them. And further, in connection with the comparison which the Prime Minister sought to draw between the recent troubles in South Africa and former troubles under former governments, the Burger has this to say—

In die oorlogsjare …

They are including the war years—

… het die Smuts-bewind nooit voor so ’n kritieke binnelandse uitbarsting te staan gekom nie.

So, Sir, even without looking anywhere beyond our borders—and I count myself as one of those who believe that we should not look too consistently beyond our borders—even without looking anywhere beyond our borders, we should be able to see the great danger of the situation in which we find ourselves and its grave urgency. If, of course, we do look beyond our borders, as from time to time we should, to see what the trend and what the speed of post-war history has been, then we realize that we and we alone are swimming against the stream, which is a very powerful stream, and that this factor, over and above what I have said about the internal evidence of danger, must make us more alive to our danger. But, Sir, this astounding statement of the Prime Minister’s was, I think trumped by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. It is true that the Minister of Bantu Administration has a reputation for this sort of thing. He is, I believe, the gentleman who remarked a short while after Sharpeville that race relation in South Africa had never been better. But I think he trumped that one too in this debate. He tells us that there are few countries in the world where the masses have more rights than they have in South Africa Sir, this is, after all, a question of fact. The hon. gentleman has remarkable opinions, but of course he has a perfect right to put them unchallenged, but this is a matter which is perfectly easily met. Of course, there are countries behind the Iron Curtain and there are dictatorships in the world where nobody has any rights at all, the masses or anybody else, but the hon. the Minister refers to masses. Where else in the free world do the masses groan under so complicated a web of restrictions as they do in South Africa? Where else do we find pass laws, influx control, restrictions on the right to own property, restrictions on the right to work and earn; where else do we find a Church clause and an Interdict Bill? Where else do we find the regulation, for my knowledge of which I am indebted to the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) that what you write on the gravestone requires the approval of the Minister. Where else in the world do we find the masses without any political rights whatever? Sir, I am not arguing the Justice or otherwise of these measures at this moment; that can be done on another occasion, but I am arguing the inaccuracy of the Minister’s statement, to put it extremely mildly.

Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Where else is the situation as complex as here in South Africa?

Dr. DE BEER:

The hon. gentleman may be right; I do not think he is but I will argue that with him separately. The situation is complex. I am dealing with the hon. the Minister’s statement of fact, and even if there were justification for it, I still say that what the Minister said yesterday or the day before, with great respect, is not the truth and the same goes for the statement which the Prime Minister made. Sir, I am going to endeavour to argue about certain other statements that he made in this debate, but I cannot argue with these two; I simply reject them, because the facts are there for all of us to see, and on the facts these two statements are incorrect. Sir, we are in danger and the position is an urgent one. I want to argue to-day that the dangers to South Africa, which appear to be various, coming from different angles, flow, very nearly all of them, from a single circumstance—from the circumstance that we in South Africa persist in a policy of discrimination on a basis of race alone. Various speakers, dealing with the problems which we have, have sought various different broad directions in which we can solve them—and very rightly and very properly too—but there is one direction, one policy, which I suggest we cannot hope to follow either with justification or with any success, and that is a policy of discrimination on the ground of race alone. I make no apology for briefly reminding hon. members what I mean when I talk of racial discrimination. I think it is necessary that we should remind ourselves of it. It is the process of the deprivation of rights, privileges or opportunities to an individual on purely arbitrary criteria, criteria which could concern themselves with religion, with language, and, I suppose, with hair colour, but which in the case of our country concerns itself with skin colour or with what we call “race ”. In other countries at other times there has been discrimination on grounds of religion. There has sometimes in history been discrimination on the grounds of language. These too were equally arbitrary criteria. The essence of discrimination is this, that an individual who has talent, who has ability, who may have training, who has ambition to improve his position in the world, finds that the doors are closed to him and that the roads are blocked, by the accident that he was born of a certain mother and at a certain place and time. What man worth the name ever in the long run accepts such treatment; what people worth the name has ever accepted such treatment? The hon. member for Namib quite correctly referred to the history of the Afrikaner people in this connection, but there are few peoples in the world who at one time or another have not struggled against discrimination, and what is important for us in South Africa to realize is that every one of them has struggled with success sooner or later. Indirectly at any rate, the hon. the Prime Minister appears to agree with this statement that discrimination cannot be practised with impunity. In 1959 in a no-confidence debate, he lectured the Opposition on the theme that their policy was in fact discriminatory and he proceeded to adumbrate his own policy of Bantu homelands.

In 1961, just the other day, the hon. the Prime Minister argued essentially the same case with a new terminology. He spoke of horizontal and vertical apartheid. Vertical apartheid was defined as a separation in which every individual within his own community would be able to rise right to the top. Sir, it is not very different from the arguments we have heard since 1948, except that the terminology has changed from time to time to give it a new look, and I think it is time that somebody said that after 13 years we are no longer going to be bluffed. For 13 long years we have heard of apartheid, of territorial apartheid and of “eiesoortige ontwikkeling” which, with your permission, Sir, I will not translate because the English is so indelicate. We have heard of Bantu homelands and now we hear of vertical apartheid. All the time we find that they coin another phrase which, for next year, might be “separation with justice ”. And what in fact happens? More urbanization, more economic integration, less separation and certainly less justice. Thirteen years is not a short time, Sir, at any point in history and least of all at this point in history. Thirteen years is long enough to allow fine phrases to fade into something which is ugly. Thirteen years is long enough for us to turn the veil aside and to see what the policy is that is practised in South Africa, and this policy is one of racial discrimination. Whether the African concerned lives in the White areas or whether he lives in the African areas—and if he is a Coloured man then for practical purposes he cannot live in a Coloured area, and if he is an Indian he cannot live in an Indian area at all—the fact is that they are discriminated against in some or in all of the ways that I enumerated just now when I was talking about the right of the masses in South Africa. Sir, for years we have been told about, and with varying degrees of patience we have waited for, the development that was going to take place that was going to create the circumstances in which we might move away from discrimination. There was a time when we were told about the great curve by the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration; when we were told that after the first 25 years of their reign the number of Africans in the town would increase and that thereafter by some alchemy they would begin to decrease. That theory appears to have been dropped now. A while ago the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) was explaining that there are considerable administrative difficulties in the way of setting up the machine which one day can begin to implement the positive side of the apartheid policy. Sir, there is no member in this House who is not aware of the administrative difficulties; there is also no member who is not aware of the degree of expenditure that is being incurred on the development of these areas; there is no member who is not aware that these problems are being trifled with. We have heard here that there is a very handsome furniture factory outside Umtata. I dare say there is, but there are another 100,000 Africans outside the Witwatersrand. We were told this afternoon by the hon. the Minister that he is spending certain sums—in answer to a question he said very small sums indeed—on developing the Native areas to increase their carrying capacity. How would that sum compare with what is being spent in the City of Cape Town or in the City of Johannesburg every year to increase its employment facilities? Those Africans who have gone into trade and have become shopkeepers are told that they should go to the Bantu areas and that there they can develop to the utmost of their ability. You are sending shopkeepers to the areas where the customers have no money to buy, and the African population is finding itself, after 13 years of fine phrases, either for the most part in the so-called White areas of South Africa where he is told that he is a temporary sojourner and therefore cannot have any rights, or he is finding himself in the impoverished Native areas of South Africa where he is finding himself the subject of the Department of Bantu Administration instead of the subject of the Union Government, but in neither case is there any move away from discrimination or any move towards justice. The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor in office used to be fond of the word “baasskap ”. It was a crude word, a word with an unpleasant sound, but it was an honest word and it described what was being done then and it describes precisely what is being done now. I say again that 13 years is long enough; we are sick and tired of fairy tales. Let us discuss this policy for what it is; let us discuss it as a policy of baasskap and a policy of baasskap cannot be maintained, not because of external attitudes, although they immediately constitute a problem; not because of any political difficulty about it, but because these are human beings with whom we are dealing, human beings who have something within them of the dignity of the individual, human beings who try to strive for the integrity of their own personality, and this striving of the human being for its own individuality has been shown again and again to be stronger than the power of authoritarian government. This is why it was most unfair of the hon. the Prime Minister to charge the Leader of the Opposition with having a policy of horizontal apartheid while he himself had a policy of vertical apartheid. I do not deny that the policy of the Leader of the Opposition can be described as horizontal apartheid, but I say that the policy of the Government, so far from being vertical apartheid, is horizontal apartheid, only on a much lower horizontal level than that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Discrimination is too dangerous and too explosive; it is too immoral and too unjust to succeed. What then? Separation? Total separation in the real sense? The sort of separation that was pleaded for in 1950, for example, at the Conference of the Churches in that year; the sort of separation we have heard about from the intellectuals; the sort of separation which, it has always been conceded, if it was possible might be a solution. But I do not think that anybody genuinely believes it is a total solution to-day. Only a few minutes ago the hon. member for Kempton Park was reminding us that we did not have to concentrate too much on what he called “die aardrykskundige faktor ”. More and more the most fervent supporters of the Government policies have been admitting that they do not envisage total partition in spite of the fact that total partitioning could be the only justification for the policy that they are applying throughout South Africa. But since total participation appears to be discarded there is no need for me to take up much time for it.

Mr. B. COETZEE:

Do you expect us to give the Basutos political rights here?

Dr. DE BEER:

Mr. Speaker, I am asked if I believe that the Basutos should be given political rights in South Africa. If a Basuto has worked and lived in South Africa long enough to have become a South African citizen then, precisely as I would give an Italian or a Pole political rights, I would give it to that Basuto.

The question now arises whether, in a partial sense, there is virtue or there is value in the idea of some separation. Here we come to much more practical and much more interesting grounds. There are hardly any of us in this House who have not, at one time or another, looked in some measure at the possibilities of the population sorting itself out, at any rate approximately, into different areas of the country. As far as this party is concerned, we have said that we believe in the decentralization of power, in a reasonable degree, to provincial government and in the interests of provincial and local self-government; that we can envisage the wisdom, at some future time, of perhaps creating within the borders of what is now the Union, new provinces; and that we have the hope that at some future time we can make of South Africa a greater whole by the addition to it as extra provinces, other territories. And so in that sense we have said that some decentralization of power, some federalization may be a good thing. From time to time among the Nationalist Party spokesmen there has been talk of a federal arrangement between different areas of South Africa. In this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has dropped a strong hint that he believes—I think his expression was that some geographical content should be given to the idea of federation.

Let us, by all means, have some decentralization, some federation in South Africa. It may serve many purposes. There are many of us who believe, in any case, that in a plural society of this sort the federal system is more conducive to freedom. But there are certain conditions which we must observe if our approach to the idea of federation is to be a constructive and ethically justifiable one and a practical one. The first is that we must realize that while there may be areas—as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests—which are predominantly White, and areas which are predominantly African—those there certainly are —we would still be dealing, in each one of these areas of any reasonable size, with a multi-racial society and the problems of a multi-racial society. So whatever the virtues of this arrangement may be, it does not get us away from the major problem of coping with the adjustment of people of different races, each to the other. Particularly does this apply to what are thought of as predominantly White states. There would, in fact, on present population figures be no possibility of a state which was predominantly White existing in South Africa, if it were of any substantial size.

The second thing we must realize is that when we talk of federalization or decentralization we, at any rate, for our part, do not wish to do anything that could lead to the fragmentation of what is now the Union of South Africa. When we talk of decentralization we talk of decentralization within our country, and not of the development which could lead to the secession or to the ejection of parts of our country. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all—because this is the temptation which lies before us all—the idea of decentralization or federalization must not be yet another trick to deprive qualified citizens of South Africa of the rights which they deserve. Whether we federalize or not, for so long as there is a central Union Parliament the only just—and in the long run the practical thing to do is to give to the citizens of South Africa, whatever province they are in, the representation which they, on their merits, deserve, in the central Parliament.

So the federation that may be of value to South Africa can be a partial solution; it can be a help to us in adjusting ourselves to each other within our country. But the problem is essentially the problem of adjustment within a multi-racial state. And whatever we may do along these lines, we will still remain with that problem.

Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

Are you against Black baasskap?

Dr. DE BEER:

Yes, certainly I am against Black baasskap. What a really childish question!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the latter part of his speech during the introduction of this debate, faced the question of adjustments in a multi-racial society. He made certain suggestions to which I want to return, because although I agree with everything he said I think there is more to be said on the subjects that arose. He said what I have already referred to about the urgency of the problem. And he said that in the creation of national unity there were certain things that must be observed and certain tasks that must be fulfilled. He said first of all that Western standards must be maintained. I could not agree more fervently. But I think that this is another one of these phrases and see what we mean when we talk of Western standards. Surely, Sir, if Western standards mean anything, Western standards mean that the individual citizen should be allowed to realize his own abilities and to lift himself in society as high as he is capable of doing without artificial restrictions being placed on him to prevent him doing so. So, in agreeing that we must maintain Western standards I would, with submission, draw the attention of the House to matters like our Pass Laws, our industrial Colour bar, and to the net-work of political barriers on grounds of race that exist in South Africa. And if we are going to move towards Western standards which can stand the test of comparison with Western standards as they have always existed, and as they exist everywhere else in the Western world to-day, then we have got to begin immediately to remove the mass of discriminatory legislation against South African citizens. And if we are not going to do this, then do not let us abuse this fine phrase “Western standards ”. Let us rather say that we are adopting a set of standards of our own.

The second thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, and which is, of course, profoundly true, and which deserves to be more closely examined than he had time to do, is that he said there must be justice to the Natives. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this word justice is one of the words of which each of us, within himself, knows the meaning. I do not believe it is open to wide varieties of interpretation. If I may, I will take an illustration which is important to me and which will serve as an example. There were a number of men who qualified with me at University and who entered the same profession as I did, and who practised. Some of them, when we wrote examinations, did better than I, some did less well than I did. Amongst both groups there were people of colour. And I think of the men of colour who did better than I, who have proceeded to higher professional qualifications, and who are rendering distinguished professional services. Justice, to me, means quite simply that I cannot justify treating that man on an inferior basis to that on which I treat myself. And that is what we, the South African people collectively, are doing. And so, when we speak of justice to the Natives let us apply the lesson of that example all the way down. Let us see that justice to the Native—if that is what we mean—means that in the same sort of measure as any other citizen of the country he must be able to realize the good and the ability and the potential that is in him in that part of the country in which he has to live and in the circumstances in which he has to keep himself alive.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is relevant here to refer to something that was said in almost exactly the same phrase “justice to the Natives ”, a long time ago, at the Convention of Union, by Mr. J. W. Sauer, when the question of the Native franchise was under discussion. He said—

By all means, gentlemen, let us fix a standard, a qualification for the franchise. But when we have fixed it, let us bar none who can pass it. The great principle of justice itself is at stake in this discussion; and there must be a just Native policy or the White man—the White man—will go under in South Africa. Justice cannot be tampered with with impunity; and justice to the Natives would secure the position of the White man in South Africa for all time— for all time.

Let us not, in any group in South Africa, take this noble word “justice” and prostitute it in order to disguise policies that are really discriminatory. Because racial discrimination is the opposite of justice. We speak of leadership with justice.

An HON. MEMBER:

Is it possible?

Dr. DE BEER:

Of course leadership with justice is possible. Leadership with justice is possible as long as the leadership is leadership on merit; as long as with just treatment, this group or that group give equal treatment to people of equal qualifications. Members of that particular group can preserve a leading position. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact there is something fine about it. But when we talk of the maintenance of leadership and we talk of it by restrictive measures, by discriminatory measures, then I doubt whether that is leadership but I know it is not justice. So when we talk of the maintenance of the leadership of our own group in South Africa, we have to look some distance into the future, and we have to ask ourselves, do we mean merely that for so long as the aggregate of skill and experience and character and education is in the hands of our own group, we will maintain leadership? Or do we mean that we propose to maintain leadership through baasskap? There is the watershed; there is the watershed in the whole approach to this problem of justice to the Natives.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, very truly, that if we are to maintain harmony in our multi-racial state then it is necessary, in the economic field, that we should raise productivity. Of course it is. I do not believe that you can give to people the opportunities that they deserve or that you can keep the peace, physically, between the people of South Africa unless we can maintain constantly rising levels of production. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, with truth, that in order to maintain the highest productivity it would be necessary to do away with job reservations. Now by job reservation most of us mean the provisions recently incorporated in an Act which is a certain, specific piece of legislation, which can be used to deny people the rights to do certain types of work. But, of course, job reservation can have a wider context, and I am not sure how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was using it. Under the measures that will have to go if we want productivity to be raised to the maximum extent in this country, are certain measures which, quantitively at any rate, are retarding productivity more at the moment than is job reservation. I refer to them only in passing, and I am aware that there are motions on the Order Paper dealing with them. The restriction on freedom of movement, the freedom to sell labour in the highest market as contained in the pass laws; influx control system, most certainly has an adverse effect on productivity. Industrial colour bars which at present exist most certainly have a deleterious effect, perhaps the largest, on productivity. And there is the very great importance, indeed, of the lack of training facilities for many of our workers of all races. These things are preventing our people from producing all that they can. And all of these will have to be dumped, because I think there is almost nobody in this House who would not agree that it is only going to be in circumstances of rising productivity and rising economic potentialities that we will be able to sort, in peace, this dreadful problem of race relations with which we have to deal.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say, quite correctly, that the Coloured people must be treated as part of the Western community. It will not surprise anybody to know that we agree with that. And we applaud the step that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken in saying that the Coloured people should be entitled to sit in this House if elected. Again it is necessary to elaborate. We will not be treating the Coloured people as part of the Western community until, on whatever qualifications are thought right, Coloured women are able to have the franchise. We will be treating them as some other part of the population, but not as part of the Western community. We will not be treating them as part of the Western community until their brothers in the Northern provinces are allowed to have the franchise. We will not be treating the Coloureds as part of the Western community if the qualifications we lay down for their franchise are different from those that we lay down for the White part of the community. The hon. the Prime Minister observed, correctly, that in order to treat the Coloured people as part of the Western community we will have to allow them to join our own political parties.

These are all among the steps that must be taken if we are to take this wise and good decision of considering the Coloured people as part of the Western community. Now, Sir, pretty well all these steps which I have said will have to be taken in terms of the suggestions that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made, amount, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to one thing, to the abolition of that discrimination which says to a man: “Because you were born of a certain mother, you will be denied opportunities and doors will be closed against you.”

If we look briefly at our economic difficulties, we see that those flow from two things: Improper use of the labour force, due very largely to discriminatory legislation on the one hand and on the other hand the destruction of the confidence of investors which flows from the fact that our race policy being discriminatory, many investors become nervous about the prospects of their investments in South Africa. And if we look for a moment at our overseas problems—I propose to do so only in passing—what after all do they amount to? I think the hon. member for Kempton Park put them correctly when he referred to the difficulties that flow from the fact that we and we alone in the whole of the world in 1961 uphold as a matter of governmental principle racial discrimination. I return to where I started, to what the Burger called “almost revolutionary state of affairs which has obtained in South Africa in recent times ”, we find that that is fed by a sense of grievance, which in turn is fed by the fact of discrimination. That is why, Sir, I make these remarks in support of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, with the addendum that my own Leader proposed. Sir, there has been talk in this debate, when the hon. the Prime Minister spoke, of the “uitroei van die Progressive Party ”. Possibly members in other parts of the House may say the same. That, however, is not the test. We might be wiped out all of us in this House. What we have to decide, Sir, is whether in the foreseeable future a method of government is going to be found under which South Africa can be governed peacefully. Sir, when one looks at the prospects under a discriminatory form of government, when one looks at the hopelessness of substituting total partition for a discriminatory form of government, then one ends by quoting the words that the hon. member for Queenstown has used before: That in the end South Africa will be governed in this way, because this is the only way in which South Africa can be governed.

*Dr. DE WET:

Mr. Speaker, of late we have been living in exciting times. The Santa Maria is on her way, but no one knows where she is bound. We are living in an era when a large luxury ship has been taken over by mutineers, something which one does not expect in this day and age, something which does not fit into this day and age at all, something which fits into the present-day world just as little as the Progressive Party fits into present-day South Africa. The hon. member who has just sat down (Dr. de Beer) has made certain statements, but one thing was clear. It is that he considers everything to be moral, everything to be right, but self-preservation is not right. When one pleads for self-preservation, when one advocates a policy of self-preservation for the White man, then it is wrong. That we may not do. Because the hon. member pleaded this afternoon for everything except for the children for whom he is responsible.

I say that we are living in strange times when we in South Africa have a party consisting of members who sit here but who do not represent anyone, nor do they represent the Black or Coloured people of South Africa. They base the entire policy which they are advocating in South Africa, their policy of equality, on one thing, namely on “merit ”. They are always talking about “merit ”. And now they have tried to tell us everything imaginable, but no one has yet been able to tell us what “merit” is. They appointed a committee to investigate this whole matter, but to this very day they have not yet decided what “merit” is. But not one Black leader of note in South Africa has given his support to the far-reaching proposals which they have advanced. The Black man has continued to adopt the attitude that they do not go far enough. They had two Black men serving on their committee and these did not support those decisions either. I now ask the hon. member: Seeing that they have gone so far that the Leader of the Progressive Party states frankly that he foresees an eventual Black government and a Black Parliament in South Africa, seeing that this was not acceptable to these two Black members on the committee of the Progressive Party, seeing that it is not acceptable to the leaders of the Black and Coloured peoples, what does he think he will achieve by this policy? If that committee had a majority of Black members in line with the population ratio in South Africa, that proposal would not even have been adopted. I therefore do not think that we should take much notice of them because one thing is certain, namely that at the next election not one of them will come back to this House. The White man does not want them; the Black man does not want them. Why should we take any notice of them? I think they have one duty to fulfil in this House and until they do so, they will have failed in their duty. It is to tell us what the definition of “merit” is. I leave it at that. One should perhaps add that we should write off the Progressive Party at the moment as the suicide party.

We have before us a motion of no-confidence in the Government. The hon. the Minister has referred inter alia to the result of the referendum and to that magnificent majority which was gained for the republic. To-day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is apparently not satisfied with the majority of 75,000 and all I want to tell him is that by no means all those people who voted against the republic belong to his party. It is by no means the position that they all support his party. Consequently, as far as the main opposition party and the Government in this country are concerned, the Government’s majority in South Africa is far greater than 75,000.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has complained that as a result of the Government’s policy we have failed to maintain South Africa’s good name overseas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to have a good name overseas and he also wants us to remain a member of the Commonwealth—I do not want to discuss that matter at the moment. I now want to ask this afternoon whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said one single word or whether any of his supporters have said one single word during this debate which can be used to help South Africa overseas, or which can strengthen the hand of the Prime Minister at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London? Just one word? Have they said one word which will enable the hon. the Prime Minister to say to the other Prime Ministers: “I have been given by the Leader of the Opposition this support?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to reply to the debate to-night and seeing that this is such an important matter, let him tell the country and le him tell us what he said in his whole speech that may assist the Prime Minister in his efforts to retain South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has aroused suspicion. It upsets him that Mr. Hammarskjoeld might have formed a reasonably good impression of South Africa. Because what has the Leader of the Opposition said? He has said that perhaps the Government had something to hide away while the Secretary-General of the United Nations was here. He then referred to the assistance which he had offered. In what way has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition offered his assistance? He went to Europe and he travelled there. But the Prime Minister as Prime Minister of South Africa is responsible, and he alone is responsible, for trying to retain South Africa’s membership of the Commonwealth. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that this was his task overseas. Why did the Leader of the Opposition not come like a man, as the late General Smuts most probably would have done, why did he not approach the Prime Minister before his departure to offer his assistance in the proper way? No, he made a statement, and the Prime Minister had to read it in the newspapers. But as a courteous person he should have approached the Prime Minister and said that he would like South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Because that is after all his desire. Instead of making a statement, he could have approached the Prime Minister and said: “On this point we agree; Seeing that I am about to go overseas, I offer you my assistance.” No, we no longer have that type of political decency in South Africa. And it could have gone further. If the Leader of the Opposition had approached the Prime Minister, as one would have expected of a Leader of the Opposition who is worth his salt, it would not have remained at that. What would it not have meant to South Africa if the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had issued a joint statement on this matter. What would it not have meant if the Leader of the Opposition had gone abroad with that statement in his pocket! But he did not do so. No wonder that they took such little notice of him overseas. But then he comes here and he tries to arouse the suspicion that there may be people who do not feel in this way, and he also lets slip the opportunity to tell the world specifically what is good about South Africa. Since we met here last year, there have been disturbances in South Africa, but not one single word crossed the lips of the Leader of the Opposition even to indicate how badly things are going in other parts of Africa and how relatively well things are going in South Africa! After all a very apt comparison can be drawn between what is happening here in South Africa and what is happening in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not do so because it might possibly be used to South Africa’s advantage. On the contrary the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come forward with this complaint: “The Government were downright neglectful in defending our country. ”

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*Dr. DE WET:

There was a time when a United Party Government was in power …

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

There was a time when the Prime Minister was the editor of the Transvaler!

*Dr. DE WET:

Thank God there was a time when the present Prime Minister was the editor of the Transvaler! Thank God there was a newspaper such as the Transvaler. I do not blame the hon. member for Orange Grove for being angry because the Transvaler was one of the instruments which contributed towards a National Party coming into power in 1948. There was a time when the United Party was in power and when it was the duty of the United Party Government to defend our country overseas. And how did they do so? Their own newspaper, the Sunday Express, wrote the following on 21 July 1946—

The fact is that day in and day out South Africa is being represented in Britain and America as a country which persecutes its Indians, deliberately starves and tyrannises its Natives and would like to grab the whole sub-continent to extend its nefarious policies.

And the Sunday Express went on to say—

But what is being done means little more than a squeak against the roar.

Then they went further—

Unless much more effective steps are taken to preserve the country’s reputation, the Union will suffer severely for that omission some day.

That was in the days when they were in power. Now they say that we are not defending South Africa. But I just want to read one sentence to the House. We know that nothing more can be done and nothing more has ever been done in the interests of South Africa than this Government has done, and in particular by the Minister of External Affairs overseas and at United Nations. When the United Party was in power, Mr. Heaton Nicholls was the representative at UNO of the then United Party Government. Here I have the history of UNO and this is what the historians have to say about Mr. Heaton Nicholls—

One mandatory, South Africa, announced its intention to annex its mandated area. Mr. Heaton Nicholls only found himself able to say that the South West African Natives were governed mainly by leaving them to themselves.

It is not a Nationalist who wrote this, nor a South African. This is the history of the United Nations as it has been compiled. Mr. Heaton Nicholls had nothing more to say than that the Natives of South West were left to themselves.

*Mr. DURRANT:

That is quite untrue!

*Dr. DE WET:

Quite untrue. The impression is being created here that the present Government is doing nothing. In the first place the position has not become so bad all of a sudden. The position of South Africa and of the White man has not been good anywhere in the world for the past 15 years and longer. But allow me now to tell the hon. member that under their regime, even the late General Smuts who was one of the founder members of the old League of Nations and of UNO as well, did not enjoy any influence or respect at the United Nations and they paid no attention to him. In 1946 the great General Smuts was there. At that time South Africa’s position was supposedly so sound and now it is supposedly so bad as a result of the National Party’s policies. The Security Council was then being constituted. There were 11 countries but South Africa was not one of them. The Socio-Economic Council was constituted—it had 18 members but South Africa was not one of them. Fourteen judges were appointed to the International Court, but there was not one single South African judge. At that time already South Africa’s world position was extremely critical. Allow me to say frankly that I am the last one to try to maintain that the position has become any easier to-day. Our position has become more difficult, but not as a result of the policies of the National Party Government but as a result of changes which have taken place in the world, as a result of a sickly journalism which wants to justify everything that is Black, but vilifies anyone who says that the White man also has a place in Africa and even in the world as well. As long ago as 1946, despite the personality of General Smuts, the United Nations did not elect South Africa to any of those important committees. At that time there were 51 members. To-day there are 100 members. In 1946 there were only three African states and the Union, that is to say four. To-day there are 23 African states who have only one thought, namely that the White man must be forced out of Africa and South Africa. Allow me to say this. Apart from the 27 African states, only nine of the 49 additional members are not under the influence of Russia and Communism or of the non-Whites. Forty of them are either Black states or Communistic states. In other words, we have the position to-day that 27 per cent of the states at the United Nations are Black; far more than half are states which are under the influence of the Communists. It is with that atmosphere that South Africa is faced to-day. It is not the National Party Government; it is not our policy primarily which is to blame, because a policy which is far milder than we have to-day, did not achieve any success in 1946 but only met with opposition. To-day the position is far different, Mr. Speaker, our position is also unsound because we in South Africa have people like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those hon. members opposite and our press who play into the hands of our enemies. It may be said that I have the press on my brain, but until we ensure that the press is at least loyal to its fatherland, we shall not be able to solve our problems. I have already discussed this matter on various occasions. The Cape Times reacted and the Star took over the report. It discussed this matter and said—

An interesting feature of the regular and mounting Nationalist attacks on the South African English-language Press is the regular accusation of “distortion ”, writes the Cape Times. Equally interesting is the almost invariable total failure to give examples of this “distortion ”, to explain what is “distorted ”, how it is “distorted” or even why it is “distorted ”—except for vague hints that it is all part of some dastardly conspiracy …

The Cape Times wrote this report and the Star took it over. I shall give a few examples this afternoon. And seeing that this is a challenge which has been issued to me, I think that the press, if it wishes to be at all reasonable, should publish these examples. In the first place I want to give examples of lies and distortions which have appeared in the local newspapers. Let us leave the outside world on one side for a moment, although these reports were sent abroad. Immediately after the Sharpeville riots the Sunday Express published the following words on its front page—

Seventy-one people were shot dead in Sharpeville for not carrying passes.

That is an absolute and infamous lie. I want to give a second example. The two reports on the disturbances have now been laid on the Table. We know that many of our non-Whites and our Whites too do not read the newspapers themselves, but they particularly read the poster on which a newspaper such as the Cape Times advertises in the mornings. Do hon. members know what the wording of the Cape Times’ poster was? Just these two words, referring of course to the Langa report—

Police condemned.

That is all. That is the impression which the outside word has been given. I suppose this is the “fair play” which the Springboks are also experiencing. On 6 June 1960 the Rand Daily Mail also had a poster which read as follows—

Boy criticized Verwoerd—banned.

I have the report here, and it does not contain one single word to justify this heading. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this type of thing is not destroying South Africa, what will destroy a country? A little boy criticized the Prime Minister and now he is being banned! Then there is another example. Let us take last Sunday’s newspaper. We know that at the moment discussions are taking place in church circles. This is something which is going on, and the Sunday Times now says—

The Moderator of the Ned. Ger. Kerk in the Cape, Dr. A. J. van der Merwe, declined an invitation to attend the opening of Par. liament in Cape Town yesterday. Usually, people invited by the Prime Minister’s office to attend the lunch with Dr. Verwoerd after the opening, accept. Dr. van der Merwe’s refusal is regarded as a snub for Dr. Verwoerd.

Dr. van der Merwe has a telephone and the newspaper has one as well. They did not phone him. Another newspaper had to phone Dr. van der Merwe on the following day and what did he say?—

“Dr. Verwoerd was not in my mind at all when I declined the invitation,” Mr. van der Merwe said this morning in Cape Town. “Furthermore the invitation was issued by the Clerk of the Senate … “I have received these invitations under all the Nationalist Prime Ministers,” he said, “but I have declined them more often than I have accepted them.”

This is the type of Press we have here. I want to read something else which also relates to the reports which have been laid on the Table, and I want to refer to the newspaper which serves the area of Sharpeville and Vanderbijlpark and which at the time published banner headlines about dum-dum bullets. The reports have been laid on the Table in this House. Nevertheless the Rand Daily Mail did not publish one single word about them. They only mentioned the report in a later issue. As far as the outside world is concerned, it is surely very important, particularly in the economic sphere, that we should uphold our good reputation. I refer once more to the Sunday Times. This newspaper stated that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union had decided that they were going to try to nationalize the mines. Both have denied this report and said that it is absolutely untrue. But while this is so important and while we are all so eager that we should remain a member of the Commonwealth, the Sunday Times published this report on 20 March 1960—

Verwoerd tells Cabinet he won’t go to Premiers’ Conference. Reprisal for Mac’s Cape Town speech.

Everyone in South Africa knows that this report does not contain a word of truth because the Prime Minister is in fact going to that conference and it has always been his intention to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we are uplifting the Black man. But the Sunday Times on 7 August published the following report—

Tribal colleges are run like reform schools, say students; iron curtain conditions alleged to exist.

The Department of Bantu Education issued a statement in which they refuted all these false allegations. But, Mr. Speaker, the worst aspect of the behaviour of our local newspapers is the following. In the world to-day there is no worse word than the word “dictator” or “dictatorship It is perhaps not disapproved of quite so strongly when it takes place in Ghana! On 19 September 1960 the Daily Despatch which supports hon. members opposite published a boxed item on its front page—one can almost describe it as an advertisement, emanating from the editor. It read as follows:

Bullets did not kill Dr. Verwoerd (Thank the Lord). But your votes on October 5 can put an end to his dictatorship. Vote NO in the referendum.

This is a local newspaper. But here I have a few other examples of reports sent from this country to the outside world, reports for which South Africa and particularly its English Press must take responsibility, because they emanate from their offices. On the 22 January 1958 the following report appeared in the New York Times

A new edition of the Bible has appeared in Cape Town in which the Song of Solomon has been rewritten to fit in with the strict apartheid laws of the country. The edition is in Afrikaans, the language of the South African Afrikaner (Dutch).

This report emanated from Cape Town on the 22 January. But the person who spread the story that the police used dum-dum bullets during the riots, namely Rev. Reeves, has been deported from South Africa. This has been done for various reasons, but not for political reasons. He has been deported because he is a danger and is undermining South Africa, and inter alia because he did not have the moral courage at least to come and give evidence. What did the Sunday Express publish on its front page on 18 September 1960—

Bishop Reeves was deported out of political spite.

But worst of all is the fact that reports are sent from the offices of the Sunday Times by a political correspondent, and I am ashamed to mention his name here. I shall therefore not mention his name, despite what he drew in Ghana. He wrote the following to the Observer, an overseas newspaper with a very large circulation—

The teenage vote (created by lowering the voting age from 21 to 18) does not account, however, for the whole Nationalist majority of just under 75,000 votes. There seems to have been more than an ordinary amount of skulduggery; whereas in other elections the missing and the dead often voted, in this referendum the unborn probably voted too.

Hon. members opposite can laugh, but this report emanated from the office of the Sunday newspaper which supports them. It is their aim to present South Africa to the world in this light. It is not only we who realize what is going on. I just want to read to the House one small report what a very eminent visitor from abroad said. He said the following to the Rand Daily Mail

Your neutralist leading article of last Friday on the Accra conference could just as well have appeared in one of the leftist journals who are so eagerly vilifying your country.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Press who are guilty of this crime. It is not only they who are taking part. Hon. members who sit on the other side of the House are doing so as well. The hon. members opposite are aiding in this vilification by the challenges which they issue here and elsewhere. I shall first mention a member who is no longer here; he is one of the people whom we have expelled, one of the people over whom the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) shed such crocodile tears. I am referring to Mr. Lee-Warden who stated here—

The police robbed the Bantu in Langa.

That was the allegation he made last year in this House. This was news which was broadcast to the outside world, and now the hon. member for Namib is sorry that he is no longer here. Have we read anything about thefts by the police in the reports which have been laid on the Table? Is there any member in this House and particularly the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) because he and his province have needed the protection of the police most in recent years—is there anyone in this House who believes that a policeman would rob a Black man? This report was sent abroad. But what did the hon. member for South Coast himself say on 25th April last year in this House. He said—

If this Government wins the republican referendum, there will be rebellion.

This was the forerunner of his story that they were going to march. But when he did not want to march, he said that he would not allow himself to be “wheelbarrowed ”. That was not true. He did allow it; they did wheelbarrow him on to that lorry from which he spoke. It was after the “wheelbarrowing” that he made this statement. They went further and they nearly pulled his arm out of joint. He was tied up. If we had been foreigners what were we to think when we read that if the vote went in favour of a republic, there would be a rebellion.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Who said that?

*Dr. DE WET:

You said so.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Quote it.

*Dr. DE WET:

You made that statement on 25th April, 1960 in this House.

Mr. MITCHELL:

It is not true; quote it.

*Dr. DE WET:

The hon. member said in this House that there would be rebellion.

Mr. MITCHELL:

It is not true.

*Dr. DE WET:

Does the hon. member also want to say that he did not say that they would march?

Mr. MITCHELL:

If you claim that I used those words, then please quote them from Hansard.

*Dr. DE WET:

I have given the hon. member the date, and I shall give the Hansard to the hon. member who follows me so that he can read it to the House but the hon. member will not escape so lightly. I am not even going to treat him as lightly as the Natalians have done. Prior to the referendum he said all he could in Natal to make a rebellion possible. Mr. Speaker, who is marching? Are these peace-loving people? Where did the hon. member want to march—in front or behind? Were those people who met him at Durban airport friendly towards him, or was the newspaper correct when it said that he was as white as a sheet—from anger or fear, I do not know which.

Last year there was a Prime Ministers’ conference. In this House the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) then said—

Louw representing South Africa—a tragedy.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*Dr. DE WET:

A man had to go to the conference to represent South Africa, and that under tragic circumstances. The Minister of External Affairs was going to that conference, but in this House it was said that it was a tragedy that he was going. Now hon. members say: “Hear, hear” but apparently even the Economist is better disposed towards South Africa than the Leader of the Opposition, because what did it write immediately after that conference? I want to read what the Economist said, and this is intended particularly for the ears of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he was also overseas and I have not read anything about him in the Economist. He said that it was a tragedy that Mr. Louw was going; he had to go abroad with that reputation to put South Africa’s case. But the Economist showed that it was more loyal to South Africa than the whole Opposition. This journal wrote—

One can only be grateful to the S.A. Government for having been represented at this Conference by the rock-like Mr. Louw, rather than by some misleading and conciliatory figure

*Dr. CRONJE:

Read on.

*Dr. DE WET:

I shall tell the House why hon. members want me to read on. It is quite true that later in this article South Africa is criticized and unpleasant things are said about South Africa. That is what they now want to hear. I should really read it to them so that they can enjoy themselves because South Africa is once again being vilified. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also going to say that it is a tragedy that the Prime Minister is going to the conference? Is he going to say that it is a tragedy that he is taking the Minister of External Affairs with him?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Yes.

*Dr. DE WET:

And then it is hon. members who say that we should do everything possible to remain within the Commonwealth.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Exactly.

*Dr. DE WET:

So disloyal are those hon. members to South Africa in their statements; in exactly the same way we find statements in the foreign Press which emanate from here and elsewhere. I want to give a few examples for the edification of the British Press who always say that we make allegations and do not give examples. In the News Chronicle of 5 June 1958 I read the following report—

Recently, thus wrote the newspaper, a White man died because a non-White ambulance driver was smacked and ordered to go away. In another instance a White boy who was lying crying with both his legs broken, was not allowed to be placed in a non-White ambulance. Such instances, the newspaper wrote, take place in Johannesburg daily.

And Chris Chataway said on television in May 1959 that if the police arrested a Native in Johannesburg and his pass was not in order, he disappeared and his family might never even know where he had disappeared to. And the New York paper, the Reporter, wrote—

Any Negro who is found on the streets of Johannesburg at night is shot dead immediately.

But I now want to tell the House about a personal experience. Last year, during the visit of Mr. Macmillan, I was living in a Sea Point hotel. The manager of the hotel is a good South African. Two foreign newspaper correspondents came to sign their names, as is the custom before one may stay at a hotel. While he was handing them the register, they were standing talking. We know that there was a small demonstration by about 250 people with placards at the airport when Mr. Macmillan arrived. With his own ears he heard the one saying to the other: “Let’s make it 25,000.” They did not want to make it 250 because that was too little; after all that does not sound like a procession; that does not fit in with the way in which they want to present South Africa and for that reason they said: “Make it 25,000.” This was supposed to be the procession which protested against apartheid on Mr. Macmillan’s arrival. What else do we read—

“Loafers, fools and hoboes have put the Nationalist Party into power.” The poor Whites have put the Nationalist Party into power, and a poor White is not a White poor man, but a White man whose poverty is the result of his laziness and lack of initiative. He is stupid, dirty and rude … and a disgrace to his community. He has one thing which the Bantu do not have: A say in the country’s government.

This appeared in the Reporter of April 1958. I leave it at that. One thing is certain in regard to South Africa: It is difficult to defend our reputation overseas to-day. South Africa does not have many friends in the world today, not because a National Party Government is in power, but because there is a sickly liberalism prevalent in the world to-day which wants to give the Black man everything and which condemns the White man; and because the good which this policy of separate development has really done is being grossly misrepresented not only by the Press of South Africa but particularly as a result of the distortions which are sent abroad and which are substantiated by statements made by hon. members opposite in this House. Again I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to pay us this one single courtesy. It is his great desire that we should remain within the Commonwealth. When he replies to-night, let him give me one single sentence from his whole speech which the Prime Minister can use with good result at the Prime Ministers’ conference in order to retain our membership of the Commonwealth.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, while I listened to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) I experienced—and I think all of us experienced the same feeling, that we have had throughout this debate, every time a member of the Government spoke —a feeling of unreality; a feeling that we in South Africa—to judge by the speeches of hon. members opposite—are isolated; are living in a vacuum, the feeling that we are not part of the world, that we are not beset by the real dangers that beset the world to-day. I first got this impression while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking on Monday. It has been confirmed by every speech from that side of the House. The Government gives the impression that they believe that South Africa exists in a vacuum, and that the appearance that we are living in that vacuum must be maintained by all the means at the disposal of the Government. If any member of the opposition warns of the growing isolation of our country, if they warn—as other people who do not think as we do have warned—that South Africa may be becoming the skunk of the Western world, then we are accused of lack of patriotism. In other words we are asked to put ourselves in the position of the householder who, when his house is on fire, must not sound the alarm bell to call the fire brigade because, the argument is, if you sound the alarm it may give satisfaction to the fire bug who set the house on fire. Or even, to judge by some of the arguments that have come from the Government benches, you must not call the fire bridgade because the water used to extinguish the fire may damage your upholstery.

The other impression that one gets is that this Government believes that it has unlimited time. Possibly never in the history of this House has unreality reached a more excessive stage than when the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior again referred to the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that possibly by the year 1970 fewer Natives will come to the cities and there may even be a diminution …

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

When did I say that?

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I am pleased to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not want to be identified with that statement.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Just keep to the facts. I know it is difficult for you but keep to the facts.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I am sorry if I attributed the remark wrongly, but it is very interesting that the Deputy Minister’s reaction should be so violent. Perhaps there are hon. members opposite who do have a slight sense of reality. But can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the time in which we live, with the events that are taking place in Africa and in the world, with events marching at the pace that they do, we have to accept as a possible answer for the problems of South Africa a policy which will, as far as the urban Native is concerned, show no results until 1970. Not until then will the first evidence of the effect of that policy become apparent, according to the hon. the Minister.

The third attitude of the Government that I have noticed, and which was again particularly apparent in the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), is the conviction that only the Government is right, that only the Government knows, that only the Nationalist Party has the information, and that anyone who dares to make a contrary suggestion, who dares to adduce facts which may persuade them to another opinion, is a traitor. That person is presumptuous and is motivated by all that is evil and base. And only occasionally, as an act of generosity, they may say that the criticism is based on ignorance. We saw it in the statement of the Federal Council of the Nationalist Party a few days ago when an entire paragraph was devoted towards dealing with the intellectuals of the Nationalist Party and of the Afrikaans-speaking people, telling them that they must be quiet, that only the Government knows what is right for every aspect of life in South Africa. Even when we have tirades against the Press in South Africa and in other parts of the world, you will find that hon. members opposite will devote speech after speech to quoting examples of what they call misrepresentation. There are such examples, which I have seen myself, of deliberate distortion of events in South Africa. One cannot condemn them too strongly. But then one should be careful not to make oneself guilty of similar things, that one should not perhaps in a moment of enthusiasm also be guilty of putting a quotation in the wrong context, as happened this afternoon when the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) accused the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) of saying that there would be a rebellion in Natal. I think he should check his facts. He may find that the hon. member for South Coast was quoting a Nationalist Minister. One must be careful. I think it would be very much wiser for my hon. friends opposite, while condemning this distorted criticism of South Africa, also to remember that in the world and its Press we have friends who help us to put our point of view and who, when they criticize us, do it as friends, with all the benevolence of which they are capable.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Are you referring to Stanley Uys?

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I was glad to see that occasionally one sees a ray of insight. I was, for example, very pleased to read the second leading article in the Burger yesterday, where in reply to a statement by a former ambassador of this Government to America, they made it clear that one cannot condemn the motives of the Western world without further ado; that those countries, like South Africa, have difficult problems and that a little understanding is due to them, too. We do not get much of that understanding from hon. members opposite. What should we do as South Africans when we consider how lonely South Africa is becoming in the world? I want to say immediately that I agree that we cannot surrender. We agree that South Africa has peculiar problems which require a peculiar solution, but we dare not ignore the fact of our growing isolation and the mounting dangers internationally to the future security of South Africa. If we do that we are negligent in our duty to the people of this country and to posterity. We should not surrender, but there are things that we can do. I want to suggest a few things we can do.

The Government, in determining its attitude and policy, in thinking about the course it sets for itself, cannot ignore world opinion when its hostility tends to become unanimous. I do not say you must surrender, but you should do something about it, and this Government can do something about it. Even if I do not agree with their policies, they can give bigger emphasis to and make bigger sacrifices for the positive content of their policy. When I look at the history of South Africa over the past 15 years, I do not want to use an argument which was so excellently used by the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), but you see the people of South Africa enmeshed in the negative measures of apartheid, many of which are indefensible, even according to the traditions of our own people before 1948. Sir, you need a very powerful magnifying glass, and in fact an electronic microscope, to find the positive aspects of apartheid. There has been a slight attempt at expediting the positive in the last few months, but the balance has weighed heavily in favour of what is negative and oppressive in the concept of apartheid. I say that a Government which studies the interests of the people of South Africa, taking into consideration the international situation in which South Africa finds itself, will lay more emphasis on the positive aspects of its policy.

The Government can do something else, and that is to inspect and examine their own policy to look for weaknesses and illogicalities in that policy which make it difficult for anybody to defend the policies practised in South Africa to-day in the world outside. Let me say in passing that there are very few of us who have not been in a situation where, however much we differ from the Government, we have been compelled to defend the Government against some of its critics. But the task of every Government supporter and every friend of South Africa becomes well-nigh impossible unless the Government is willing to look at its own policy, as some members of the Nationalist Party tried to do until the Federal Council met last week, to remove these illogicalities and weaknesses. Instead of that, we get a reaffirmation of an attitude which is more inflexible and more arrogant than one can believe possible, upholding the mistaken policy of the Government and what is wrong and indefensible.

When I speak of weaknesses and illogicalities, I am prepared to mention them. Every one of them appeared again in the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on Monday. But before dealing with that, I just want to draw the attention of the House to this, that something else appeared from the speech of the Prime Minister on Monday. The Prime Minister launched a vigorous attack, an emotional attack, upon the United Party because of our attitude to the Coloureds. He went to great lengths and indulged in excessive emotionalism and fear-mongering in telling the people of South Africa what would happen if our Coloured policy was carried out. But he did not attack our Coloured policy alone. That attack, Sir, was not intended for us alone. That attack on the United Party was a pretext used by the Prime Minister to decapitate the intellectuals and moderates in the Nationalist Party. He appeared to attack the United Party, but did so in such a manner that he was doing more injury to the thinking Nationalists than to the United Party. Who are these people whom the Prime Minister was attacking under the pretext of going for the United Party? They are people who normally support the Nationalist Party, people from every walk of life, people who are in revolt, intellectual and moral revolt, because they feel that they cannot indefinitely live with the untruth which is Verwoerdian apartheid. I say his attack on us, in order to reach his own people, revealed illogicalities which make the policy of this Government indefensible and which make the Government under his Prime Ministership unfit to rule the country in the second half of the twentieth century. I wish I had time to deal with all these illogicalities, but I shall take a few examples which go to the root of the question.

The very first one I think of is that the Prime Minister tried to use the technique of giving things names, good-sounding names with historical associations, which cannot with justice be applied to the things he mentioned. I think, e.g., that on Monday he described this new policy of his as a four-stream policy. What was his object? Consciously or subconsciously his object was to ask people to associate this policy with the two-stream policy of General Hertzog. Sir, that is illogical and it is untrue. General Hertzog would never in his lifetime have supported the policy which the Prime Minister re-announced the other day for the Cape Coloureds. General Hertzog would have fought the Prime Minister to the end of his days on something so illogical and unjust and so far removed from the actualities of South African life. The people of South Africa are asked to believe that this is a similar policy to General Hertzog’s, that as General Hertzog believed that English and Afrikaans-speaking people, while remaining a political and economic whole, should seek to develop their own cultural potentials. The Prime Minister wants us to believe that that is his policy for the Coloureds and the Indians and the Natives, but that is not so.

The second and major illogicality, which is indefensible by any South African, is the attitude of the Prime Minister to the Coloureds. I have sought for some logical justification for the Prime Minister’s attitude. I thought I had found it in a report which appeared in the Nationalist Press on 1 December, when the Prime Minister amongst other things said this—

Ons kan geen beleid van integrasie by Indiërs, die Kleurlinge of die Bantoe aanvaar nie. In so ’n beleid is daar nie verdrukking nie. Ons weet tog dit kan nie vir ewig voortduur dat die een groep altyd die kneg van die ander kan wees nie. So dom en onchristelik is ons beslis nie. In die uitvoering van ons beleid is ons bereid om te sorg vir die groei en ontwikkeling van elke groep op sy eie terrein.

To give that utterance some moral and logical content, the conclusion is inevitable that if you do not want to deny the Coloured people political rights for all time, according to their deserts as a community, you must apply, according to Nationalist thinking, the same principle and the same excuse that they are applying to the Native people. They can say with a semblance of logic that they will not give the Natives rights in certain parts of South Africa, but will give them rights in other parts where they can develop to the utmost of their ability, and there is some moral content and logic in theory for that. Sir, I read that statement by the Prime Minister to indicate that he would apply the same principle to the Coloureds, that somewhere there would be found for the Coloureds a homeland where they, too, would be able to develop to the utmost of their ability.

An HON. MEMBER:

You must have read it wrongly.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Yes, I am sorry, I often read things wrongly when I try to credit the hon. the Prime Minister with logic, but I realized the tragic mistake I made when I read the Burger’s leading article this morning. Now you must please remember, Sir, that the moral basis of the apartheid policy is that every race affected by this policy will suffer no injustice because somewhere in South Africa there will be found a place where they can develop to the utmost of their ability. There will be no ceiling to the achievement of the people in the homelands to be created for them by the Government. That is supposed to be the moral basis and the very foundation of the thinking of the Nationalist Party, but what do I read in the Burger this morning? Of course they attack the English Press, inevitably—

Sommige Engelse koerante skep daar behae in om aan die Regering ’n beleid toe te dig dat hy êrens in die Noordweste ’n Kleurlingtuiste wil inrig volgens die model van die verskillende Bantoetuistes. Dit is daarop bereken … om die blanke publiek wys te maak dat die Nasionale Party mal geword het … Op grond van ’n verkeerde weergawe van wat hy oor die bruinmense se grond in die Noordweste gesê het, word hy nou voorgestel as propagandis vir ’n waansinnige plan om die Kleurlinge in daardie dele saam te bondel.

What a situation that a prominent newspaper supporting the Government must accuse people—who believe that they read in the statements of the Prime Minister some moral justification for their policy in regard to other groups in the country—of attributing to the Nationalist Party something which is insane and mad? We get sanctimonious exhortations from the other side that we must help to defend the Government’s policy in the outside world, but when we seek something on which we can base our defence we are accused of accusing the Government of being mad. The policy in other words now for the Coloureds is not truly a policy of separate development, because if you want separate development, which is a moral policy, you cannot have it unless there is hope for those people that somewhere sometime they will also achieve political expression. No, this policy of the Prime Minister is a policy of separation, limited separation which will give an opportunity to a few of them to become chemists and attorneys in their own towns. Sir, how many Coloureds can become chemists and attorneys? It is a policy of limited separation, giving limited opportunities to some Coloured people to cloak a policy of complete injustice.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

In what respect?

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I can give the Deputy Minister the facts and the arguments, but not the intelligence to understand them. The fact is that whether we like it or not, the Coloured people are inextricably part of the Western community in the Union. They have no other homelands. They can have no other homelands than, to a large extent, the Western Province. They are part of us. They have been procreated by us. I think it is tragic that an hon. member like the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) should try to indulge in the argument that the Coloureds are of mixed blood but not of White blood except to a small extent. It is also a qualm of conscience, trying to escape blood responsibility for the sins committed by the White men against the Coloured people; and to go further and to suggest that that admixture of blood is entirely due to sailors! I must say that the sailors who call at the ports of the country are very fast-moving. In the few days that their ships take to turn round at the ports of Cape Town or Durban, they make sallies to Pietersburg in the Northern Transvaal to leave Coloured communities after a visit of a day or so! They are amazing people, Sir. In the few days it takes a ship to turn round in the harbour they can scatter their progeny throughout the Western Province, parts of the Free State and Transvaal. They can assume the guise of a Coenraad Buys and create large Coloured communities in the north west, and they can take the name of Dunn and create a whole tribe of Coloured people in Natal. I am sure they are the envy of every Don Juan and Casanova in history! This sort of argument does not make sense and it is not true. In any case it is not a question of blood; it is a question of the standard of civilization that these people have reached as a community. I say that if you look at the standard of civilization the Coloureds have reached as a community you find it is our civilization. To a large extent it is an Afrikaans civilization; and a party like the Nationalist Party which claims to represent the best of Afrikaans culture—they are of all people the last to deny progress and justice to the Coloureds. All of us, whatever our differences may be on definitions, have as our major political object in South Africa the maintenance of civilized standards. I am not one of those people who believe that we can define civilization by simple education tests. I cannot accept that you can define civilization purely on income, because if you did that the most civilized Black people would be the shebeen queens and the witchdoctors. But I do say that objectively it can be determined whether a community is civilized or not, and nobody can deny the observation of his own eyes and say that on the whole the Coloureds are not a civilized community. But the Prime Minister, instead of thanking God that we have in South Africa a million people who are civilized and eager to defend our civilization against all-comers, lives in trembling and fear of these civilized people. He says he cannot give them direct representation in Parliament. Why not? Because they will ask for more. Why, if separate representation of the Coloured people, which is the policy of the Government, which the Government defended for years in this House as being superior representation for the Coloureds to any other form —why, if it is truly representative of the Coloured people, should they be less constrained to ask for more? The Prime Minister’s logic is interesting. Do not let me give my child food because he might over-eat himself; he may ask for more.

Now I want to show a further illogicality in the policy of the Government, as glaring, and that is the refusal of the Government to face the fact that we have in South Africa a permanent Bantu urban population which cannot be retribalized. It is the refusal to face such an inescapable fact and to consider that fact in the formulation of policy which vitiates the Prime Minister’s entire philosophy and defeats every attempt by the Prime Minister at a logical presentation of his policy of separate development. For that whole policy is based on a fiction. The Prime Minister can get up in the House as he did on Monday and make an apparently convincing speech in which one argument logically followed upon the other, but if the first and primary premise is based on a fiction his whole argument falls to pieces. The very basis of the apartheid policy in regard to the Bantu is the assumption, which is a fiction, that all the Natives outside the reserves are temporarily resident in the urban areas and still have their roots and aspirations in the reserves. That is not true, Sir. And you cannot make it true with all the arguments and wishful thinking, all the regulations and all the laws, in the world. So the whole pack of cards collapses. If there is any proof needed, if there is any hon. member opposite who doubts what I say and needs proof, I say that the finest proof that you cannot retribalize all the Natives, that you cannot put them all into the reserves, is found in the policy of the Prime Minister himself, his policy of developing industry on the borders of the reserves. If the Prime Minister really believes that there is a future home for all Natives in the reserves, why is he not logical and put those industries inside the reserves? I will tell you why, Sir. There are only two possible explanations. The one I do not really believe is the true explanation but it is a possible explanation. That is that the Government wishes to place the industries on the borders of the reserves, on the White man’s side of the border, as a concession to the greed of the people of South Africa. The Government wants to have its cake and eat it. They want a degree of development in the reserves, but the plums must come to the White man. I do not think that is the true explanation, but if it is not true; the only other explanation is that the Government is now compelled to make a concession by this preposterous policy to the necessity of fact; and the necessity of fact that they cannot escape is that willy-nilly our prosperity is based on the integration in our economy of non-White hands, and we cannot undo that except at the cost of economic catastrophe, poverty and extinction of the civilized standards of the White man’s way of life. Sir, time flies. Is it not time that we in South Africa should face facts? Oh, let us dream our dreams and have our wishful thinking, but for heaven’s sake let us base the policies on which we hope to solve our problems and to further the happiness of our people on facts. And here are some of the facts. One is that the Coloureds are part of the Western community in the Union, and any attempt to escape that fact leads to injustice, to moral torment and to an untenable position against yourself, against your neighbour and against the world. The second is that the urban Bantu cannot by law be made into a reserve Native and retribalized. He has to be dealt with in a different manner from the Native in the reserve. The problem of the Natives in the reserves and the problem of those Natives outside the reserves who are not in fact domiciled in the reserves are two different problems, and if you try to equate these two problems and try to find one over-simplified solution for both groups, you land in the indefensible position in which the Prime Minister of South Africa finds himself to-day. Let us also accept—and to-day, after 13 years, I see a glimmer of hope—that we must have more immigrants in South Africa, not only to strengthen the White community in this country but also to give us the greater speed and the enterprise and the skills and even the capital that we need to raise the standards of all our people in South Africa as they have to be raised urgently. Let us decide that we shall maintain in South Africa at all costs not necessarily the White man because he is White but that we shall maintain in this country as long as we have the power to do so, civilized standards. We of the United Party feel strongly that any policy which is calculated to hand over power to uncivilized people, no matter by what indirect means one sets about that, is a policy which cannot be justified in morality or in conscience. There I may agree with people who say that one has the right to self-defence, but it must be an enlightened right and it can only be based upon the common desire of all people in this land to maintain civilized standards for those who have achieved it and to extend civilized standards as time goes on to other people who are capable of achieving it. Sir, different interpretations are possible as to what is right; there may be different interpretations of what is moral, but facts are there to be ascertained objectively and scientifically and logic is an exact science. The charge that we make against this Government and the reason why we say that this Government is unfit to govern South Africa is that not only in our opinion do they deny a true moral content to their policy but in the opinion of any objective student of this position, it is clear that this Government has neither logic nor fact on its side and it must fail, and the longer it stays in power the more disastrous for South Africa will be the failure of the Government.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

The hon. member who has just sat down …

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

On a point of order, I heard the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) say to his colleagues: “Let us talk deliberately now.” They are talking so loudly that one cannot hear the Deputy Minister.

*Mr. GAY:

We are only paying you back in your own coin.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

I just want to tell hon. members over there that they will not put me off by talking to one another; I am also going to talk to them. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was kind enough to refer to my intelligence when I wanted to ask him a reasonable question. Let me tell the hon. member at once that I do not rate my intelligence very high; I rate it as just so high, as if he gave me his, it would still remain low.

I want to come to a few of the points which the hon. member for Yeoville made. The hon. member, as he has done in the past, referred to our policy—his interpretation of our policy. I am obliged to remind him once again, as I did on a previous occasion, of the fact that I do not believe him when he tells me what my policy is. With all due respect, I cannot even believe him when he tells me what his own policy is, and I want to prove that. In the course of his speech the hon. member attacked apartheid, the policy of this Government and the policy on this side of the House, but it is very striking that while they attack our policy on this occasion and on all other occasions, when they contest an election against the Progressive Party, as they are doing at present in Green Point, they peddle our policy at Progressive Party meetings—and I could call many witnesses. Just listen to the questions which the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Basson) asks at meetings; at these meetings, judging by their questions, they pose as people who are propagating the policy of the National Party. The hon. member also tried to make capital out of quotations from the Burger. But I do not want to pursue that. I just want to read to him one passage from the parliamentary summary of Mr. Schalk Pienaar, and I would advise the hon. member to make a mental note of it—

The Burger can only express the hope that it will be recognized by all the fruit it bears and not by all the friends nowadays surrounding it.

The hon. member comes here and tries to create the impression among the uninitiated that the United Party’s new stand that Coloureds should be represented in this House by Coloureds has always been the policy of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, it is not even the policy of the United Party yet; it is still just an hallucination of the Leader of the Opposition; it still has to be confirmed by their congresses. But they have suddenly taken this stand because they are being forced by the Progressives to adopt some sort of stand. Alternatively, they have taken this stand because they believe that they can prey on what they believe to be dissatisfaction in the ranks of the National Party. That is why they have accepted that policy.

The hon. member advanced three propositions. He began by saying that “there was a feeling of unreality” during this debate. He says that for days he has had that “feeling of unreality ”.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

When you talk; I have it again now.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

I do not hold it against him that he has it. Psychologically speaking he need not be worried about it. All boxers who are punch-drunk become like that at times, and in the nature of things the hon. member has not yet recovered from the knock-out blow which he received on the 5th of October. The hon. member need not be perturbed about it therefore; he need not go and consult a psychiatrist about it; it will right itself again. In the second place the hon. member says that we accused them of not being sufficiently patriotic. As far as that accusation is concerned I want to say “amen ”. The hon. member says that we shout to high heaven because they call for the fire brigade when the house is on fire. But who set the house alight? Who is pouring oil on the fire? And, Mr. Speaker, they are not calling the fire brigade. If only they would call the fire brigade or even try to play the role of firemen themselves one could still forgive them, but they are calling other people to pour even more oil on the fire. That is what their conduct amounts to, and as time goes on, not only to-day but in the course of this Session, we shall see that that is indeed the case.

Then in the third place the hon. member says that the Government adopts the attitude that “the Government knows best ”. That is not the attitude which the Government adopts, that is the attitude which the voters of South Africa adopt; that is why we are sitting here and they are sitting over there. The hon. member accused my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) of having quoted incorrectly when he said that the effect of the speech by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) last year …

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

He never used the word “effect ”.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

… when he said that the hon. member for South Coast had advocated rebellion in this House.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

He was quoting.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

I want to go further now and repeat that accusation against the hon. member for South Coast, because what do I find in Hansard of the 25th April at the end of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast—that speech in which he tried to frighten us? This is what he said at the end—

Therefore I say that if it goes against us …

In other words, the referendum.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Why do you wrest it from its context?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

This is what the hon. member said at the end of his speech and he wanted to frighten us with it. Mr. Speaker, I have not even read out what he said and he is objecting already. He said—

Therefore I say that if it goes against us, we say in advance to the Government and the Nationalist Party—and we say it as South Africans “you go and be damned because we will not accept that decision ”.

What does it mean? But I want to go further. If one looks at the trend of the whole speech, one can only come to one conclusion and that is that the hon. member was trying to frighten us, and when the Deputy Minister of the Interior spoke after him, he put this question to the hon. member for South Coast (because this was also the impression he got after having listened to the hon. member for South Coast). “Are you advocating open rebellion?” To which the hon. member for South Coast replied—

Let me say this that if this Government persists in this fashion it will only have itself to blame if a rebellion breaks out.
Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes. That is a totally different story.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

It is not necessary for me to make any further comments on those words.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to this debate for many days. It has indeed been an interesting debate. By the way, one of the most interesting aspects of the debate—I do not want to draw any inferences from that— it just struck me—is that on the Opposition side 12 speakers took part in the debate. Of those 12 ten were originally, and some are still, Afrikaans-speaking. I am not drawing any inference from that. It just struck me.

*Mr. RAW:

How many of you spoke English?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

As far as opposition to the Government is concerned, I want to lump the whole of the Opposition together, including the hon. member for Namib (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). It is interesting; we have two independent members here. The one was a Nationalist and he is fast becoming a United Party supporter; the other was a United Party supporter and he is fast becoming a Nationalist.

Mr. HORAK:

You can have him.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

I want to make this prophecy in respect of the hon. member for Namib that when the next election is held in South Africa, he will be a candidate of the United Party. I think that is very clear to all of us. If one takes the whole of the Opposition on the other side, it is perfectly clear that their speeches radiated frustration, that their speeches radiated disappointment, that the attitude of some of them— the hon. member for South Coast, for instance —suggested that they were furious. One almost gets the impression when one walks into the Chamber that he is saying under his breath “left right; left right I say that is what their speeches radiated—frustration and disappointment—because we are listening here to a debate on a motion of no confidence, just after the referendum held on the 5th of October, and in that referendum the Opposition had everything one needed to win a referendum—and they said so themselves the best organization, the best propaganda. They lacked only two things; one was their fault and the other was their choice, in other words, they did not have the voters and they did not have a leader. That is why they lost. And that is why their speeches radiated the tone to which we have had to listen here.

Now I want to confine myself to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition and I want to pause for a few moments to deal with two aspects of it in particular. The first aspect is this that he accuses us of not having succeeded in maintaining racial harmony. I want to confine myself particularly to the question of English-Afrikaans relationships. In the second instance the Government is asked to resign. I notice that the Star says that the Leader of the Opposition made a mistake; they say that he should not have tried to attack the Government on merit. He should have attacked the Prime Minister personally, because that is what he and his fellow-party members did during the referendum, so much so that in a newspaper report of his speech, a report which occupied a column and a half, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Prime Minister’s name 37 times—so personal were the attacks against the Prime Minister.

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Impossible.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

The Leader of the Opposition was worried—and every good South African will justifiably be worried—as to whether or not South Africa had a good name abroad. He was not only perturbed about the fact that we have not got a good name abroad but he made the charge against us that we were doing nothing to restore our good name. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was oversea recently. I did not accompany him, and consequently I do not know what he did there. I am dependent upon Press reports in South Africa to ascertain whether or not he did anything for us there, and I did not see a single Press report to the effect that he stepped into the breach for South Africa. As a matter of fact I did not even see a report indicating that he stepped into the breach for the United Party. Perhaps it was because the hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) was there before him and explained the Progressive Party’s policy there, and in the circumstances the Leader of the Opposition perhaps thought it wise not to explain his policy or the policy of South Africa. If the hon. member is so concerned I want to ask him to tell us where and how he tried to defend South Africa’s name abroad. I should very much like to hear that from him. Mr. Speaker, I listened here to the Leader of the Opposition and I once again read his speeches, as reported in the newspapers, and it was very clear to me that apart from the present frustration on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and his party, they had to find a scapegoat, and that they then decided that the proper course would be to use the Government as a scapegoat in connection with this. But it was something that struck me and the impression that I got from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was that if I had been an enemy of South Africa and had wished to attack South Africa, I would not have wanted anything more than the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I would have welcomed it with all my heart as ammunition against South Africa. I do not blame the hon. member for wanting to find a scapegoat after the recent election. It is only human to do so, but why, while his actual purpose was to shoot the Government, does he have to use South Africa as a target? The cardinal blunder which hon. members on the opposite side have always made during the years I have sat here, is that they cannot distinguish between the National Party and South Africa, they believe that the more they can slander South Africa the sooner they will overthrow the National Party. As far as they are concerned, South Africa and the National Party are one and the same thing, and as far as they are concerned both are free game. Mr. Speaker, he was annoyed and he wanted to find a scapegoat. I am not the only person who thinks so. It so happens that the Rand Daily Mail also thought so on the 26th October, just after the referendum, when they wrote in their leading article on the front page—

During the past three weeks a sense of deflation has been apparent amongst Opposition supporters in the country. This always happens after an election defeat.

The hon. member can be pleased; that too will not be permanent—

There is a tendency to look for scapegoats and to feel unduly despondent about the future.

That is what they are to-day, “unduly despondent about the future ”. But there is hope for them. I want to bring them a message of hope. It comes from the affable and loquacious member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). He made a speech on October the 25th in Johannesburg, and this is what I read in the Rand Daily Mail

If the next general election is held in 1963, the United Party will defeat the Nationalists, Mr. Higgerty, M.P. for Von Brandis and Chief Whip of the United Party, told a packed meeting of the Witwatersrand General Council of the Party in the S.A.P. Club, Johannesburg last night.

They will simply have to try again. But what incentives have there been in the past for the Opposition? What incentives have there been in the years that I have sat here? I know it is difficult to be in the wilderness for 13 years. It is difficult if you have to confess to yourself that you are going to remain in the wilderness for another 13 years and another 13 years; it is not a pleasant feeling, and that is why I can understand their utterances. In the years that I have sat here the Opposition has had five expectations of coming into power. They entertained five expectations, one of which they hoped would put them in power. The first was—and one saw this especially after 1948—that they believed that the views of the voters would change. They believed that we had come into power by accident, and that very soon they would once again come into power. But let me take the calculations of the hon. member for Yeoville himself. According to him, we only had the support of 40 per cent of the electorate in 1948; according to the figures we now have the support of 52 per cent of the electorate. It is a futile hope the Opposition entertains if they believe that the voters will change their views. But the second thing that has kept them alive till now has been the fact that they have believed that an economic disaster is going to hit us and that that will perhaps bring them into power. But that is also a futile hope, because South Africa’s economy is fundamentally sound and is going from strength to strength. The third thing they hoped—I do not want to accuse them of having brought it about or welcomed it—was that internal revolutions would perhaps overthrow the Government, and that is why they are particularly angry with the Minister of Justice at the moment, as has been apparent in this debate, because the Government acted so quickly and effectively to bring about peace and quiet in the country. And that is why suspicion is being cast on the steps taken by the Government. Then, Sir, they hoped that there would be discord in the ranks of the National Party, which would stand them in good stead in any election in the future. I want to say to them at once that if they are pinning their hopes on discord in the ranks of the Nationalists, discord on which they can then prey, they are underestimating the solidarity of the National Party. Moreover, they are underestimating the confidence which the Nationalist has in the Leader of the National Party, the Prime Minister. In the fifth place, they hoped that pressure from abroad—and one gets the impression that this was their only remaining hope—would put them in power. That is why —and that is my charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—they are doing little or nothing to uphold South Africa’s name abroad. I do not ask them to uphold the name of the National Party, because that would be too much to ask of the Leader of the Opposition, but it is certainly not too much to ask a patriot to defend his country, South Africa. You noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition, in the course of his speech, referred to Reeves’ book about Sharpeville. The speech which he made on that occasion was an important one which was published throughout the world as one coming from the Opposition Leader in a police state, and this was an ideal opportunity to repudiate the statements made by Reeves and to do something for South Africa. Mr. Speaker, he had an open line in front of him to score a try for South Africa and he preferred not to do so. I accuse the Opposition—and their behaviour in this House bears witness to it at all times—of doing little or nothing to uphold South Africa’s good name abroad. Now the Leader of the Opposition comes along and demands that the Government should resign. Why must it resign? Because it won the referendum? He says that the Government should resign. He comes along with a motion of no-confidence in the Government and in the Prime Minister. Many reasons were mentioned in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech as to why the result of the referendum can be regarded as a motion of confidence in the National Party—not because we wanted it to be like that but because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted it.

Various reasons were mentioned. During the short time at my disposal I should still like to mention two. The one is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said time and again “a vote in favour of the republic is a vote against the United Party His lieutenants said that. That was the blatant way in which it was put to the electorate. Why then does he not now accept it as a vote against the United Party and be done with it? After all he himself said it and invited it! Now the hon. member pretends to have forgotten that he and his followers said that. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition also went further; he should realize that I am a reasonable person and I want to warn him not to doubt it because I have the quotations here. He went further and said: “a vote against the republic is a vote against Dr. Verwoerd ”. Does he deny having said that?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Not at all.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

You did say it?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Yes.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

In view of the fact that you asked the country for it and now that the country has given its judgement in no uncertain terms, what right have you to come here and to ask the Prime Minister to resign? That is, as my grandmother used to say, “absolute foolishness ”.

I wish to say that this referendum which we have had was not only a motion of confidence in the National Party and the Government, but I go further and say that because of the unprecedented bitterness with which that campaign was launched against the hon. the Prime Minister, it was a personal triumph for the Prime Minister.

Seeing that we have been referring to the manner in which this campaign was carried on against the Prime Minister personally as an individual during the referendum, you will allow me, Sir, to give a few examples of that.

From the nature of things, some of them are unpleasant, Mr. Speaker, and I ask your forgiveness for that in advance. I cannot be held liable for what hon. members opposite say, but I think the personal spirit in which those hon. members opposite conducted the referendum campaign should be placed on record. According to the Cape Times of 20 September 1960—and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) can start getting annoyed, because I am going to refer to him— a meeting was held in Durban and here I have the report which appeared in the Cape Times about that meeting. Referring to the meeting they say—

But this was a good tempered and well-behaved crowd.

It is a pity I cannot say that about the speakers who addressed that meeting. They continue—

It was a well-behaved crowd which, however, lacked nothing in determination when put to the test by Sir de Villiers Graaff and Mr. Douglas Mitchell, who opened the meeting by asking: “Who the hell does Verwoerd think he is?”

Surely that is not what you expect of a decent politician, Sir? You do not expect him to make a remark like that about any opponent, let alone about the Prime Minister, whether or not he agrees with him. But let us go further and see what kind of argument was used against the Prime Minister and against the National Party. A meeting was held here in Cape Town, at Camps Bay. A report appeared in the Cape Argus of 30 August about that meeting. But before I come to the section which I really want to quote, let me read the caption to you Sir, because that is something which should be preserved for posterity and accordingly appear in Hansard. This is what the Argus said—

At the beginning of the meeting, which was organized jointly by the United and Progressive parties, and which was attended by 200 people, the lights in the hall were dimmed, and led by two groups of flag-bearers, the speakers took their place on the platform while “The land of Hope and Glory” was played, and then “Die Stem” was sung.

We have made great progress in the interim, Sir. We remember the bitter attacks when “Die Stem” was declared the national anthem, and now the only difference between the United Party and us is that they sing it before a meeting and we sing it after a meeting. The speakers on that occasion were the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson).

*An HON. MEMBER:

What about the Progressive Party?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

The Progressive Party was actually there, but they were not allowed to speak. Unfortunately they were satisfied with that. I do not know, however, why they dimmed the lights, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it was really because the hon. member for Sea Point was there. I have a vague suspicion that they did not want the people to see that the hon. member for Wynberg was one of the speakers. Because the Argus says the following—

Mr. Hamilton Russell said Dr. Verwoerd was going step-by-step towards his ideal of a Nazi republic.
HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

I hear “hear, hear” Sir. Mr. Speaker, it would have been a tragedy if hon. members opposite who now shout “hear, hear” as far as the hon. member for Wynberg is concerned, were doctors and you called them in a case of illness in our home, because they would only have been able to diagnose two types of illnesses: If you do not suffer from khaki fever you suffer from German measles. According to them it will be a Nazi republic which we are trying to establish. That is how they try to make us suspect. I see, however, that my time is running out. I want to go further and say that not only was that campaign conducted against the person of the Prime Minister, because that could be illustrated by dozens of examples, but the English-speaking section of South Africa have never before been so recklessly incited by any political party as they were by the Opposition. But they will reap the fruits of that. Do you know, Sir, I am not very popular in Natal. The first motion of no confidence which I experienced was in Natal. But the person who is less popular than I am is the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell). I say that the English-speaking section who have been so misled by hon. members opposite, that section which was so recklessly incited, will yet call hon. members opposite to book. Is it surprising, therefore, that the United Party is on the decline? Their numbers are decreasing and decreasing. Let us be honest. The hon. member over there is looking me straight in the eyes. Is it not a fact that many people have to-day lost their respect for the United Party? They have done so because of the opportunism of the United Party and its lack of policy, because of the manner in which they have acted. I repeat that never before has the English-speaking section of the country been incited in a more reckless fashion. Just listen to this appeal which the party opposite issued during the referendum—

For the first time in Union history English votes can decide a national issue. This is your one and only chance to knock out the Nationalists.

That was as big a boxed report as that to which the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) referred. That was a straightforward appeal to the English-speaking section to vote against us, not because they were against a republic in principle, or opposed to a republic on its merits, but surely and simply because they were English-speaking. Is that political morality? Are people who act in such a manner, people who love South Africa, who want to protect South Africa and who want to see South Africa flourish? But more than that: What sort of propaganda did they make amongst the English-speaking section with those gallow-noose advertisements and the like which they published? Listen to this one—

Do you want English to become a second-class language?

That was what they told the English-speaking section would happen if the Government side won the referendum. There are many similar reports that I could quote, but time does not permit me to do so. But just listen to this caption which appeared in the Star of 4 October, the day before the referendum, this illustrates how recklessly they played upon the feelings of the people. This is the caption—

Doomsday looms over South Africa.
HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

“Doomsday” has arrived and hon. members are still sitting here. I would have expected to find the hon. member for Yeoville somewhere else. No, Sir, hon. members opposite are disappointed, frustrated, some of them are annoyed, and they are annoyed because they have had the thrashing of their lives. What has happened to the mockery we always had to listen to: You represent the constituencies, but the electorate outside is behind us. Even the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) will no longer dare to allege that. hon. members opposite have sown dragon teeth and they will reap dragon teeth. There you see the hon. members of the Progressive Party, Sir, they were reared by the United Party. To an increasing extent people are leaving the United Party. But this Government is growing from strength to strength and it is growing from strength to strength not because it is a super perfect Government, not because it is a Government which never makes mistakes, but because it is a Government which gives expression to what is happening in the soul of this nation and because it is a Government which the electorate of South Africa know truly loves South Africa and will take up the cudgels on behalf of South Africa. Because that is the position, it is ridiculous— to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Government to resign. No, the Government must not resign, it must carry on. Neither is it necessary for the Opposition to resign, they will be extinguished on their own.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Mr. Speaker, I have always regarded the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down, as a somewhat robust politician, with his background of generalship in the Ossewa-Brandwag. I could see with what nostalgia he watched the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), marching, because it reminded him of the days when he marched “hotklou, haarklou, hotklou, haarklou!” He comes here and protests against the attacks on the hon. the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

Personal attacks.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Personal attacks, very well. Here is what the hon. the Prime Minister has stated—

Ons kon ’n volkstemming hou oor die koms van ’n republiek in ’n gees van goedgesindheid, van goedgeaardheid soos ons nog nooit selfs in ’n verkiesing in ons land beleef het nie.

Mr. Speaker, if there was anything needed to give encouragement and hope to this side of the House, and it is not needed, then it was the sort of speech we got from the Deputy Minister the last 40 minutes. What point has he made that has contributed to this debate in any respect whatever?

This no-confidence debate, in spite of the fact that it lasts four days, is a somewhat limited debate. It was very difficult to get the speakers in on both sides. We have had the experience in this debate, Sir, that certain members of the minor parties and Independents speaking in this House devoting quite as much time to the policies of the Opposition as to the policies of the Government. It seems to me that it is not the right place for time to be wasted on that sort of thing, and I want to remind hon. members of those minor groups that they were elected by United Party voters to fight the Nationalists, not to come here and waste the time of the House trying to criticize the policies of the United Party. I do not want to be unkind to them. I want to tell the members of the Progressive Party that we still believe that their policy is a complete abdication and is going to lead to a Black government in South Africa in the comparatively near future. If they have any doubts on the issue, it is always open to them to resign their seats; then we can test this matter. Because it will be a good thing, Sir, to get the ring clear before the big fight which has got to come during the next general election when this Nationalist Party will have to give account of its stewardship during the time it has been in power. It has been held together up to now by certain ideological ideals. Whether they will continue to hold them together is another matter. One thing is certain and that is that the public and the people of South Africa are becoming more and more impatient of their administration of South Africa.

Let us come to the motion itself, and let us deal with the charges made and the answers given by the Government, in so far as we have got any answers at all. In that motion I accused the Government of being neglectful in maintaining the good name of South Africa, and I indicated against what background that motion was introduced. I conceded at once that in a world in which there was acceptance on many sides of self-determination at all costs, South Africa’s position was a difficult one any way. What have we had? Over-sensitiveness to press criticism as illustrated by some of the examples quoted by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) about alleged skulduggery in the referendum. He should have read what was written in the United States after the presidential election, to realize what it is to give and take criticism in a true national spirit. They can’t take it! What did we hear? That our position is a difficult one, because of the conflict between the East and the West, as the hon. the Prime Minister said. I accept that. I think that is sound. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark comes here and contradicts him and says that we are in a difficult position because of a sickly humanism. Now who is right, Mr. Speaker? I go further and say that the policies of the Government and the attitude of the Government have made the position doubly difficult for South Africa. One of the instances of the difficulties with which we are faced was mentioned by me in regard to South West Africa, in respect of the Fourth Committee, in respect of our position in the United Nations Organization and in respect of the pending case before the International Court of Justice. The hon. the Prime Minister took exception to that, as did the hon. Minister of Justice. I would like to tell both those gentlemen that in conducting that case, that case is being conducted on behalf of South Africa, not on behalf of the Government alone, and the first duty of a reputable attorney is to let his client know what the position will be if he wins or if he loses. Instead of which what has happened? No proper warning has been given to the people of South Africa either as to what is involved or to what may be involved. I think that that is a very sad state of affairs for South Africa to be in at the present moment. I gave examples why I thought this Government had been neglectful in defending South Africa’s good name, and I instanced the delay in the publication, the tabling in this House, of the reports of the judicial commissions on Langa and Sharpeville. What explanation did we get from the Minister of Justice? First of all he told us that because the commissions had been appointed at request of Parliament, it was right and in accordance with the privileges of Parliament that the reports should be laid on the Table of this House. No one will deny that. But I do not believe there is one member of this House who would not have been prepared to waive those privileges if he thought he could save South Africa from the criticism we have had overseas because of those reports not being available. Then the hon. Minister said that the one report came in July and he held it back because he wanted to publish the two together because they happened to deal with the same subject. Did they? Did they have to do with the same subject? Their terms of reference were not to enquire into the entire circumstances giving rise to those unfortunate incidents. They were to report upon individual incidents. The hon. Minister could have done South Africa a great deal of good if he had released the Langa report in July last year, and let the world know what the Judge felt about the happenings there. Then we had the story of it affecting the credibility of witnesses. Good gracious me, Mr. Speaker, what difference would it make? In cross-examination you challenge the witness and if you were to say that the commission had disbelieved him on a certain point, he would be perfectly entitled to say that the Judge was wrong—it is not a judicial finding for all time, it does not stand against his record. And there are still 45 cases outstanding. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how a government, jealous of South Africa’s good name, could have this information available and be so lax and slow and neglectful in publishing it and making it available to the world. The hon. Deputy Minister of Education in one of the few passages that was of any importance said: Why did I not repudiate the statement in Bishop Reeves’s book? For the simple reason that I had not the report available and did not know where I stood. If I had been in possession of the report it would have given me great pleasure to repudiate some of the statements that were made in that book.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Reeves’s book is banned. You can’t read it.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I will tell the hon. the Minister where he can find a copy. He may read it under your surveillance in the library, Mr. Speaker. I criticized the Minister because of the numbers of people detained and not charged during the emergency. What was the reply we got from the hon. the Minister? He said: “Yes, I was complaining about the ‘arme, bandelose leegleërs en tsotsi’s en diewe Is he prepared to say that those were the only people who were detained—“arme, bandelose leegleërs en tsotsi’s en diewe”?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I said “a large percentage of them ”.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Now he is qualifying that. You see, Sir, he challenged anyone to get up and to say that it was wrong to detain these people “waar hulle verantwoordelik was vir hierdie dinge ”. If they were responsible, they should have been charged and nobody would have criticized it. What horrifies us is the small percentage apparently charged, having regard to the total number of people who were detained.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Is it the first time in South Africa’s history that that has been done?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. Minister is now suggesting that it may have been done on other occasions. That does not interest me. It probably did South Africa’s name harm then. He should have learned from experience. If we have had that experience before, he should have learned what to do on this occasion.

Sir, I criticized once again the failure of the Government to appoint a commission to go into the root causes of the disturbances at Sharpeville and Langa. The hon. the Prime Minister in replying to that said that he knows the reason but that others would deal with that matter. Who? No one in this debate so far has dealt with that point. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development referred to the bad character of Sebukwe, the leader at Sharpeville and referred to the fact that Kgosana was a Basuto leading proud Xhosas. What about it? They would not have succeeded in doing what was done unless there were grievances. Because never could they have had the success they have had unless there were people who were dissatisfied and unhappy and ripe to listen to the sort of nonsense talked by some of those people. And it is exactly those grievances we wanted to get at, and the Government can never remedy those grievances until they know what they are. What does commerce think, what does industry think? But from the Government we have as yet had no statement as to the causes of those happenings. The result is that the world is drawing its own conclusions, as irresponsibly as you like, and we have no proper explanation and are not in the position to defend ourselves.

The fourth charge had to do with the trouble in Pondoland. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that it was part of a pattern. Bizana had been a trouble centre always, that the trouble had been inspired by White communists, that Whites slept at night in Pondoland, inciting against the Bantu Authorities, that they would not dip, that they were against development, against the educational system. He had a commission of inquiry, which supported some of the complaints. He has never told us what he is going to do with the results of the commission of inquiry. He has never told us whether they were right or wrong, he has never told us what action the Government is taking to see that that state of affairs does not arise again. Meanwhile we had the story overseas that the Navy is patrolling the coast. In answer to a question this afternoon, the hon. Minister of Defence said that it was not so. Why was that not denied at once?

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

I denied it months ago.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I am very glad to hear it. I wish it had been published overseas as well. But where are we? Once again we have the position that had there been no grievances, there would have been no trouble. The Minister appoints a commission. The commission says there are grievances. Apparently he never told the Native people themselves what he was going to do about those grievances. He certainly has not told us. I say that this is a most irresponsible way to act, and it is an irresponsible way to treat the Press of the world who is interested in South Africa, and it places the friends of South Africa in the position that they are absolutely defenceless against the attacks of people overseas. That is why I say that this Government has been neglectful.

I made a further charge that as a result of the action and inaction of the Government the entire moral content of apartheid had been destroyed. The hon. the Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the struggle between East and West as a background to the difficulties with which we were faced. I think we all know that. I think many of us could have made out that case as well, many of us here made it out before on behalf of South Africa when we ourselves were overseas. But then we got the suggestion that General Smuts had exactly the same troubles as we have, that we are just as unpopular to-day as we were then, and that in fact it is the unreasonableness of the world and not the fact that this Government is unable to justify the morality of the actions which it is taking. Mr. Speaker, look at the voting at the United Nations Organization over the last 13 years. In 1947, the South-West African question came up and 20 nations voted with us, 4 abstained and 27 voted against us. Amongst those voting with us were some of the biggest and most important nations in the world. In 1957 as many as 56 voted against us, 12 abstained and only 5 voted with us. In 1960 not one single nation voted with us. We sit before the Fourth Committee alone. We do not deserve it. If proper steps had been taken, I am satisfied that that position could have been very much improved.

There are other examples, but I do not want to go into them in detail. What is the justification the hon. the Prime Minister is now giving for his policy of apartheid? He is talking now of parallel streams and vertical apartheid. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that in South Africa, to an ever-increasing degree, the art of staying in power and of retaining government in this country is going to depend less and less on negative criticism of positive suggestions than it is going to depend upon taking the right action at the right time. And the tragedy with which we are faced, which becomes worse every year, as time becomes shorter and shorter for South Africa, is that this Government seems quite unwilling to grasp the nature of the problem with which it is battling or to take its courage in its hands and grasp the nettle which is the essence of that courage.

The hon. the Prime Minister has time and again spoken of the races flowing in parallel streams, and “we shall keep them that way,” he says. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman thinks our racial streams are running parallel then all I can say is that he has a very different notion of parallel lines from the notion I have. My definition of parallel lines is lines which move in the same direction but never meet. But what is happening here, applied in its simple terms? Many millions of Bantu live in our urban areas. Many work in our mines, many work in our factories. Our Asiatics and Coloureds are inexplicably interwoven in the economic life of the European in South Africa. And the numbers grow from year to year, as the census figures have just shown once again. The fact of the matter is simply this, that the whole apartheid theory seems to be based on a misconception of these racial streams, because what we have, in fact, is one broad economic stream for the whole of the Union of South Africa and all its races. And it seems to me you have the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government trying to put fences in those streams to keep the races apart and saying “Now there are four different streams” despite the fact that the water is flowing through the fences as much as it likes. The fact is that insofar as there is separation it is in the political field, and only in the political field that the hon. the Prime Minister maintains that separation, apart from some measure of social and residential separation.

And then the hon. the Prime Minister talks of the morality; the pillar of morality which stretches from the bottom to the top in each stream. But where, Sir, is the morality when there is job reservation? Where is the morality when certain people are only allowed to do certain things in certain areas, where it would probably be less profitable for them? Where is the morality of the application of the Group Areas Act in such a way that it is undermining the livelihood of a large sector of the population? Where is the morality of the treatment of the Cape Coloured people? The Cape Coloured people to-day have less than the Natives had a few years ago. They have representation in Parliament, it is true, but what is their ultimate development going to be? What is the position in regard to job reservation as applied to them? I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with this, but he fobbed me off and said he would deal with it later. I am still waiting, because he cannot justify it and he knows it. They talk of the development of those 2,000,000 morgen for the Cape Coloured people. What does that prove? It is not a national home, said the hon. the Minister. Well, what is it then? An area for land settlement? And does their future lie in this multi-racial area? What hope is the hon. the Prime Minister holding out for them? We hear from the hon. the Minister that the Coloured Affairs Council will get more responsibility. Mr. Speaker, where is the morality?

Let us take the question of the urban Native. The urban Native permanently settled in our industrial areas, by a fiction is deemed to be domiciled in the reserves, for purposes of his political rights. Where is the morality now? And this is the sort of thing that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to defend the policies of this Government overseas. The hon. the Minister talks of dividing up the land into areas for Natives which are going to be their home lands; something like 80 per cent of the population are going to have their home lands in something like 17 per cent of the land. Then you must go overseas and defend the morality of that action! I think the hon. the Minister is beginning to appreciate what I mean when I say it is difficult to defend South Africa’s good name overseas while these policies are followed.

Then I charged the Government with having failed to promote peace and racial harmony in South Africa, and the reply I got from the hon. the Prime Minister was that we must not forget what the position had been like in the past; there had been disturbances which we had forgotten about; 50,000 people had marched from Springs on Johannesburg. But has there ever been one year in our history when there has been a Cato Manor, a Sharpeville, a Langa; difficulties in Pondoland and other areas; a state of emergency declared twice, once for five months? And the hon. the Prime Minister says race relations are excellent! He says there is peace in South Africa and harmony as we have never known before! And the Government takes no responsibility. Everybody is wrong except the Government. Then the hon. the Prime Minister proceeds to try and suggest that under his policies there is more chance of harmony, more chance of peace than there would be if there were a United Party Government. Mr. Speaker, can he honestly say that he believes that because the Cape Coloured people have four Europeans representing them here in this House, and because there is a Coloured Affairs Council, that they are not themselves thinking from day to day of making further demands? Will it make any difference if they are represented by Coloured people or by Europeans in this House? Why, because they are Coloured, must more demands be made than if they were Europeans? Does he believe that the Coloured people are going to be as happy with job reservation as they will be without it? And then he talks about greater harmony under his policy than that of the United Party. I raised the question of the Asiatics. I still do not know what the Government policy is.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

We don’t know what yours is.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I have stated mine, and I have stated it in writing. I have published it for you. You can read it in the statement “Ordered Advance ”—“The Charter of Hope” that so interested the hon. the Minister of Finance. But what is the policy of this Government as regards the Asiatics? Do they not exist? Have the hon. members opposite forgotten that Asiatics exist in South Africa?

Mr. MITCHELL:

They were going to repatriate them in six months.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Yes, they were going to repatriate them, we heard that. And then the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of the Interior and had been on the job for three years had to admit that 14,000 of them had got into the country somehow, but he did not quite know how.

What is the position with regard to the native population? The hon. the Prime Minister’s policy is still Bantustans; competing patriotisms, competing nationalisms, dismemberment of the Union of South Africa. They will have no representation in this Parliament which controls their destinies, and the vast number of the African population living in our industrial areas, by a fiction regarded as citizens of states not yet created. Is that going to lead to happiness? Is that going to lead to harmony in the future as against the realistic policy of the United Party? Our policy which recognizes that the Native permanently settled in the urban areas has come to stay, and that you have to help and foster the emergence of a responsible class of Native; that you have to allow for the development of self-government in those Native areas, which may be different in the different areas. I have said I can see a future Union Parliament granting rights to the responsible local institutions in those areas, perhaps containing certain elements of federalism. Surely that is a better solution, having one patriotism, one nationality, one love for South Africa, instead of different little states all over the country.

Mr. D. J. POTGIETER:

You have a supporter, Jannie!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I think that if I talk a little longer I would gain a few supporters over there, because this is very close to what some of them were talking before they were led astray by the hon. the Prime Minister. But let us go further. I spoke about insufficient economic prosperity to carry out the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister; for the development of his border industries; I showed, for the type of Native policy he wants to apply, he must have vast supplies of capital. And he can only do it with an expanding economy. But what have we seen in the last year? We have had no estimate yet of the cost from those hon. members. We do not know what the effect is going to be in regard to wages; we do not know what the effect is going to be insofar as skills are being wasted. And, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says South Africa is flourishing, yet nothing is being done that is adequate enough to impress anybody in the world that the hon. gentleman is really serious in carrying out that policy.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) took me to task. He said I was un-South African to suggest for a moment that this Government was not defending South Africa’s good name overseas. But what was that party of his doing during the war years, when he was a recruiting officer on this side of the House? He must remember very well what they were doing. It ill-befits one on that side of the House to make accusations of that kind to this side of the House. And even if the hon. gentleman is occasionally carried away with enthusiasm and forgets that he has changed sides, I would suggest he be a little more careful in the future.

Then comes the suggestion that I have no right at this stage to introduce a motion of no-confidence because the United Party lost the referendum. Well Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister left it free to his people to vote as they liked. I replied to him, in this House, that our people were free to vote as they liked, and the result makes it quite clear that there was voting across the party line in many constituencies. But do not let us worry about technicalities of that kind.

The hon. the Prime Minister took a second point. He said: “What has changed since October the 5th? Everything you have spoken about was known on October the 5th.” Was Pondoland known? Was another state of emergency known? Was it known that £79,000,000 net of private capital had left South Africa? Have there not been actions and inactions by this Government in that period? Was it known what was happening at UNO? The hon. the Prime Minister said nothing had happened since the 5th of October. But there is something else that has happened since the 5th of October. There has been what the Nationalist organs describe as a free exchange of opinion in the Nationalist ranks on colour policies. If it was free, it must be the first time in the history of the Nationalist Party. But it has left its mark. There are hon. members on that side of the House who do not agree with the decisions taken. There are hon. members on that side of the House who are very unhappy about those decision.

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

Nonsense!

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I know the Chief Whip has to say “nonsense ”. I know that as a good, loyal party man, he will keep on saying nonsense—but he cannot hide the facts. And he knows, as well, that there are many thousands of supporters of that Party outside who are unhappy. There are tens of thousands of them who are unhappy at the sort of policies this Government is following at the present time. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I am right in moving a motion of no-confidence at this stage. I am right because the seeds have been sown. It may be a little while before they come to fruition, but it may well be that the first republican session of Parliament is the last session of the Nationalist Party.

Question put: That all the words after “That ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—50: Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

NOES—91: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rust, H. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Vyver, I. W. J.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentsel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Question accordingly negatived, the words omitted and the amendment proposed by Dr. Steytler dropped.

The substitution of the words proposed by the Prime Minister was put and the House divided:

AYES—91: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. D. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Erasmus, F. C.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Froneman, E. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Riche, R.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. D.; Rall, J. J.; Rust, H. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scholtz, D. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Vyver, I. W. J.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentsel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—50: Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A. Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; Cronje F. J. C.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R. Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C W.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O. Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W. Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P. Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G. Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Steenkamp L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A. Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M. van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M. Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Substitution of the words agreed to.

Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz.: That this House expresses its fullest confidence in the Government.

The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.

MONDAY, 30 JANUARY 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

VACANCY

Mr. SPEAKER announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in this House of the electoral division of Hospital on account of the resignation of Dr. B. Wilson, which was received to-day.

PRIVATE BILLS REFERRED TO SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. HAAK:

I move—

That the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (Repeal of Laws) (Private) Bill [A.B. 12—’61] be referred to a Select Committee, the members to be appointed under Standing Order No. 54 (Private Bills).

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. H. J. VAN WYK:

I move—

That the University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act Amendment (Private) Bill [A.B. 13—’61] be referred to a Select Committee, the members to be appointed under Standing Order No. 54 (Private Bills).

Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

CONSTITUTION BILL

First Order read: Second reading, Constitution Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before calling upon the hon. the Prime Minister I want to take this opportunity of pointing out to hon. members that this House is to-day commencing a debate on one of the most important Bills, if not the most important Bill, ever introduced into the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, namely, legislation providing for the establishment of a republic for South Africa. In the circumstances I wish to make a friendly yet most earnest appeal to hon. members to maintain at all times the spirit and tone of the debate on as high a level as possible and to refrain from indulging in personalities. I know that members will endeavour throughout to maintain the dignity and prestige of Parliament and will not lightly do anything which will bring the proceedings of this House into disrepute in the eyes of the public. I therefore feel confident that in making this appeal I shall have the full support of all hon. members.

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In moving the second reading of the Constitution Bill, I want to announce immediately that, in terms of the right granted to me by the Rules of the House, I intend in the course of this debate to deal with various aspects in both official languages, some parts in Afrikaans and some in English. I do so deliberately in order to try to indicate symbolically that we are entering the republic of South Africa and are taking with us, as one of our most valuable possessions, the two languages which we have accepted and recognized as our official languages.

To-day this is a memorable occasion, an historic occasion, but I do not want to make use of it to stress to any great extent the emotional aspects which undoubtedly accompany this development with which we are dealing here. The time of achievement is not the time when emotional backgrounds should be emphasized too strongly. We want to state the case for the republic in such a way that it will be possible for all of us to face it with equanimity and with hope. It is a long-cherished ideal, the realization of which is now approaching, an ideal which has been cherished by certain sections of our population perhaps more than by others. It is one which throughout the years of political development has always been envisaged by the National parties as they developed during the various periods. It is an ideal which was also accepted at a certain stage of its development by even the United Party (and which was never rejected by the deletion of that part of its constitution). Already, shortly after the first years of Union, it was said that South Africa must once again become a republic. And gradually through the years, in times of stress, it became increasingly clear to the whole of the population that one day it would come. Through the generations we became accustomed to the belief that the natural process of development in South Africa was towards a republic, but precisely when and precisely how and precisely what it would be like were not equally clear. Since 1948, however, it has been stated in the most unequivocal language that the period of achievement was beginning to come nearer, and in the past few years, after the last election, it was stated even more clearly that the republic would have to come about within the present five-year period. The country became so accustomed to this idea that it surprised nobody when finally the announcement was made that the time had at last arrived. Last year this Parliament, as an act of preparation for the test to be put to the people of South Act, passed the Referendum Act, and in terms of that Act the referendum was held on 5 October last year. In consequence of the result of that referendum, and in terms of a promise given, the draft Constitution was published in the Government Gazette on 9 December, 1960, based on the South Africa Act, as had also been promised. On 23 January this year this Bill was introduced here. In this way we have progressed from the ideal to the initial steps of the reality.

These things that have happened have different meanings for the various sections of the population. From the Afrikaner’s point of view it was something which would inevitably stir his deepest feelings. Right throughout his history—long before the establishment of the two republics in the north—he had been by nature a republican. He was a republican because he helped here to develop a country far away—particularly when taking into consideration the conditions prevailing at that time —from his fatherland. Here he had to help to clean up his own country; here he had to establish a new nation or go under. In this way, both because of the fact that he was far removed from his country of origin and possessed the independence of the pioneer and through the natural conservatism of the farmer on his farm, which formed the basis of this nation, the Afrikaner steadily but energetically started to develop a Government for his own country. At first there was the realization of his ideal in a diversity of republics, but eventually the realization of his ideal was concentrated on two larger republics. When this period was over, the ideal was dampened but did not disappear. He longed for and pleaded for, and later exerted himself for the establishment once more of that same form of government. However, the feeling also grew in him that the new republic should be something bigger and different from what he had had before but had been unable to retain. Finally, the idea of a great republic of South Africa became his ideal. It was the ideal of a republic not only for his own section of the population, but for the population as a whole. To this ideal of a republic was linked the idea that the various sections of the population, despite former strife, should be welded into one nation, a single nation which could live in this country and create its own future here.

In this way, then, the ideal of a republic grew in the hearts of the Afrikaners until to-day. That is the position to-day. For that republic he is prepared to make sacrifices, sacrifices even of much of what he had earlier hoped would be characteristic of his republic. I must emphasize this, because the republic which we are going to establish now is not what many people throughout the years expected it to be. As it will now be established, it contains great concessions for the sake of the unity of the new nation. I may mention a few examples of this. The Nationalist, right from the earliest days, always thought of the constitution of the republic as something which to a very large extent would be based on and would be in conformity with the character of the constitutions of what were called model states by writers overseas. He, however, realized, when the time approached, that that could not be the position if all sections of the population were to be considered. He had to take into account the whole of the development towards a republic since 1910, and he would have to take, as the basis for these modern times, what had been born in the period which is now passing, viz. the South Africa Act with all its constant amendments. Therefore, there is inherent in the acceptance of this type of constitution (which is contained in the Bill before the House) a contribution to the growing unity of the people of South Africa, even though it will cause many people grief. The Nationalists are prepared to abandon the old constitutions of the republics for the sake of this greater cause.

I can mention a second example closely connected with that. There has always been in the mind of the Afrikaners the restoration, one day, of a President who would not only be the Head of State but also the Head of the Government, the combination of these two positions as it was in the old Republics. Here also the realism of our times in the minds of the generation which is now experiencing the achievement of this desire resulted in the traditions of the other section of the population being borne in mind. They had something to contribute from their history as well as us, and together with us, over the 50 years which have passed since 1910; the tradition which provided for the separation of the duties and the offices of the Head of State and the Head of the Government. In the draft Constitution which hon. members are now considering that has been borne in mind, and in that way another sacrifice is being made.

There is also much in the ceremonial of our Parliament and in its procedure which does not conform to what the Nationalist always regarded as being characteristic and inherent and which he would have liked to retain. It is rather characteristic of those things that form part of the traditions of the Mother of Parliaments, viz. that of Britain. These things have been proud memories and therefore are of importance to the other section of our White population. Whilst there certainly will have to be agreement about certain simplifications of procedures—not in order to resuscitate something out of our history, but purely for the sake of efficient working methods—the price has nevertheless been paid of accepting that this ceremonial, although it was inherited, has become part of our practice and our traditions. Therefore we shall have to build on that.

Apart from this, there are still other provisions reinstituted by this Constitution and which are not in consonance with the expectations of many people as to what would be done when the Republic was one day established. I want to refer, for example, to the symbol of independence, the Flag. There was an idea in the minds of many people that another flag would be accepted, not necessarily the flag of one of the former Republics, but something quite new, something which would symbolize not the past, but the changes to come. It was, however, realized that the flag we have was born out of strife and concessions made by the one to the other, and that it is a flag which has, as the only national flag, already become part of the South African tradition. It was also realized that to bring about changes in that respect now would result in renewed strife, strife over a symbol instead of obtaining a decision in regard to the nature and the form of Government. Therefore it was accepted as a fact—and it certainly caused pain in the hearts of many and still does—that the flag which was born through suffering here in South Africa should be retained. That is provided for in the Constitution.

In addition—let me say so frankly—membership of the Commonwealth was for a long time not recognized by the Nationalists as being one of the characteristics of a Republic of South Africa. That was firstly the position because at that time secession from the Crown would necessarily have meant secession from the Commonwealth. Thereafter, when the change came about and republics were allowed in the Commonwealth, it became an open question, but to many Nationalists it was in their hearts an open question which they considered would be decided along the lines of not remaining a member of the Commonwealth but rather becoming an ally and a friend of the other members of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, when the time became ripe for the establishment of the republic—recently—it was realized that in the same way as the desire to become a republic was deeply engraved in the hearts particularly of the Afrikaner Nationalists, the desire to retain the bonds with the Commonwealth were equally deeply engraved in the hearts of the English-speaking section of the population. It is, however, necessary that our English-speaking friends should realize that whilst all Nationalists to-day accept the fact that the republic should be a member of the Commonwealth, many of them did not come to that decision so much for materialistic reasons —although it is realized that it also has its material advantages, which, however, are not as great as some people would profess. Membership has been accepted by the majority of Afrikaner Nationalists as one of the means which will assist in welding us together into one nation in the new republic. That is a price which is being paid, just as on the other hand the price of saying farewell to the Monarchy is being paid. If that is realized, the mutual conception of what this change demands on both sides will perhaps be better understood.

Mr. Speaker, there is also an English-speaking South African angle to the whole problem of becoming a republic. May I say that in making use of the right, which the Rules of the House give me, to make part of my speech in English, I do so for no other reason than to symbolize, if I possibly can, in this eventful moment, the fact that we are entering the republic (in spite of many and big political differences between us) with the realization that there is much that we possess together. There is this one country which belongs to all of us. In particular it must be emphasized that we have two languages: not one language belonging to some and another belonging to others, but two languages belonging to all of us, and of value to all of us.

In South Africa there are English-speaking South Africans who are republicans at heart. There may be not many but they are here. They desire a republic because they honestly believe that it is the best form of government for this country of ours. They believe that in a republic the nation, which we all desire should develop here, can really be built, since then only the stresses and strains which have pestered our existence in the past will fall away. There are others, perhaps more, who are not so much republicans at heart, but who have realized for a long time that a republic is bound to come. They have accepted this with good grace, hoping that in aiding the republic to come about they may also aid in eliminating much of what has been bad in our history— conflicts which we all desire to forget. They also hoped that their support might aid in building up friendship, not only within the country but also without, friendships which may persevere for all time. They realized that the monarchial form of state has always been an impediment to the development of real friendship between the whole of South Africa and Great Britain, and were convinced that the substance of friendship is much more important to them than the form of state. They understood that while the English-speaking section of the South African population would always have this deep feeling of friendship for the mother country from which they came, a similar feeling could not easily develop among the Afrikaners as long as it was felt that the connection, in any constitutional sense, might again lead to some form of subservience, either legally and openly or otherwise in some underlying form. Whether this was right or wrong, they realized that here was a fundamental psychological impediment to the development of real friendship and co-operation. And so these English-speaking friends, who understood the Afrikaner, felt in favour of a republic in order to remove what was a disturbing element so that the basis of friendship—both between the two nations who have so much in common, economically and otherwise, and between the Afrikaner section and the English-speaking section of our population—could develop. Thirdly there are those English-speaking citizens of South Africa who were not and are not in favour of a republic, who even feel keenly antagonistic towards the process on which we have embarked. They need not think that we cannot understand their feelings or sympathize with their unhappiness. We have gone through all that ourselves. For many, many years we had to accept a constitutional situation with which we could not feel satisfied. There is some difference, however. In our case we had to participate in a constitutional situation which developed out of the subjection of our nation by theirs; in their case they only have to accept a constitutional situation upon which we are entering together in what will be our common land. But one can understand this heartburning. From the Afrikaner side therefore we felt that it was necessary to try to make this painful change— painful for them—as easy as possible. I have just said and I wish to repeat that for that very reason great sacrifices have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I made an appeal before the referendum for unity. It is sometimes said that we have made no sacrifice for that unity and we have been asked what we were prepared to do. I must emphasize again, as I have done often and often before, that we did make sacrifices. I do not think our English-speaking friends realize quite how big those sacrifices are to many of us. If they could grasp that, they might feel better and realize that while they must accept a republic, we must accept much that is written into this constitution which is opposed to our former ambitions and ideals. Perhaps we give up quite as much as they have had to do. For many, many years it was the ambition of the nationalist, of the republican, to create a constitution built on the lines of the republican constitutions of the past in South Africa. It was a deep and heartfelt desire, so deeply ingrained that until about a year ago it almost seemed impossible for any concession to be made in this direction, in the direction of a constitution based on the South Africa Act. If that remained so it might have been almost impossible to propose the change to a republic when we felt the stage had been reached, because it could have been a republic in which the different sections would have felt compelled to fight each other continuously. As the need for White unity became stronger and stronger during the past few years, it was realized by the Afrikaner, however, that that unity was much more important than the precise form of a constitution. In the interests of this unity, in order to be able to have a republic with which the English-speaking section of South Africa could also become satisfied, it became possible to convince us all that the only basis for a republic was to take what we have and to build upon it, namely the South Africa Act as it had developed throughout the years. This was, after all, continuous development in the direction of a republic. Therefore the constitutional situation as we know it will be retained. We have evolution, not revolution.

Part of the constitutional desires of the republican, a part he has had to sacrifice in the interest of unity, is the type of president. The presidency was always conceived as becoming something similar to the position held by President Steyn or President Paul Kruger, a president who would not only be head of state but also head of government. Again, realism of the Afrikaner republican makes him understand that that would be so strange to the British tradition, and therefore that of the other section of our population, as well as to the tradition built up in South Africa since 1910, that in this a sacrifice to unity had also to be made. This caused much more heartburning than is possibly realized by our English-speaking friends who seem to think that all the sacrifices are being made by them. Yet this has been done and republicans throughout South Africa showed by their support at the referendum after this had been stated clearly, that they were prepared to accept this form of republic. They knew exactly what was intended.

And then I come to the flag. The present form of South African flag was accepted after a prolonged struggle. It is not the flag which people thought in the course of time they would want. Many suggestions, not only for the resurrection of one of the old flags of former republics, but also others in favour of something quite new, have been brought to our attention from time to time. Here it was felt that the flag we know was the result of much argument and compromise, and that it would be invidious to make a change now and thereby let something which is a symbol become the centre-piece of renewed struggle instead of being quietly retained as formerly accepted. The decision was to let the development towards unity go on undisturbed at this stage at least by renewed strife about what is only a symbol.

There is also the question of parliamentary ceremonial, and parliamentary procedure. This differs from what was expected once upon a time would be the ceremonial and procedure in the republic. There, too, apart from attempts which will undoubtedly be made towards simplification in the interest of facilitating the work of Parliament—and that will be done by agreement—the acceptance in principle of the old procedure makes it quite clear that we are prepared to build on the procedure we know and the ceremonial that tradition has left us.

Most important of all probably is the fact that membership of the Commonwealth was not contemplated when the ideal of a republic was first mooted, and was not contemplated right through the long period of its development. It was not that friendship or alliance with members of the Commonwealth would not be something that would not be eagerly sought, but the idea of belonging to one Commonwealth in spite of separation from the Crown, was not until fairly recently, looked upon as possible. Therefore the republican ideal had then of necessity to be seen as a development outside the Commonwealth. That idea gripped the mind of the Afrikaans republican and had to be torn out of his conception of what should happen when we came to the stage when we finally had to make a decision. That idea had remained in spite of the fact that a change had come over the Commonwealth in recent times. I want to emphasize most clearly that, while it is quite true that membership of the Commonwealth holds certain advantages including certain economical advantages and while this is fully realized, and also that membership of such a group is of great importance in this present world of combinations of nations as well as that the natural combination to belong to is the one to which we already belong, nevertheless—and this cannot be over-emphasized—the main reason why Commonwealth membership as part and parcel of the republican development, unless we are turned away, was accepted by republicans, Afrikanerdom particularly, was the realization that give and take was necessary if we had to weld our sections of our population into one nation. Membership of the Commonwealth has been fully accepted as part of the development which we are trying to undertake. It has not only been fully accepted but been honestly accepted. I must stress this because it has been repeatedly said by people that I personally and my party are not genuine in our acceptance of Commonwealth membership, if it can be retained. We are said to be only bluffing. People are told that we want to become a member of the Commonwealth for a short time, just in order to tide things over, but that it is already our intention to remove our country from membership as soon as ever we can. Certain newspapers have even said that it would only be a question of six months, that we are accepting membership of the Commonwealth. I want to say clearly that we are not bluffers, Commonwealth while the Commonwealth remains as it is to-day. We are genuinely seeking to retain membership. According to newspaper reports much unpleasantness may await me when I go to London to try and make this possible. That won’t deter me from doing my duty. I shall honestly strive to achieve membership. I cannot, however, do so at the expense of allowing interference in South Africa’s affairs. I cannot seek membership at the expense of the sacrifice of principles of policy which are ours and ours alone to decide. We can fight about those matters here but no other nation has the right to veto or to intervene. Apart from an unequivocal stand on that, I shall make an honest and strong attempt and a sincere one to retain membership, and if South Africa is retained as a member of the Commonwealth it will be our earnest endeavour to co-operate as fully as is possible in all matters of common concern. We can actually do so better as a republic and with greater support from all the sections of our nation than we could in the past because no longer will our co-operation, if real and active, be seen as a possible sacrifice of independence or of standpoint. We can co-operate better as a republic of South Africa because misunderstanding of their leaders by their own people can no longer arise. The ideal whose fulfilment it was feared might be retarded, might be harmed, by such co-operation, will have been achieved.

All these prices have been paid for unity and they have been accompanied by much heartbreaking. It was quite as hard for some of us to sacrifice certain of these ideals as it is for some of our English-speaking friends to accept the coming of the republican form of government. If all of us could only understand that we are to-day contributing to greater harmony and unity, and better co-operation with our friends overseas, and if we could on both sides see the other man’s point of view in this and accept it as honestly held, then much will be gained which sometimes seems to have been lost.

It is said nevertheless that we must pay further prices for unity. What are they? I can only see a few suggestions clearly. The one is that we should take English-speaking members into our Cabinet. That is being suggested. That, we are told, would be a proof of our honesty of purpose and of a real desire for unity. Let us examine more closely the practical possibilities of such a step. If I am asked to take an English-speaking Nationalist, an English-speaking member of my party, into the Cabinet, then there is no doubt that—it suitable persons are available—we could take them into the Cabinet. There is no doubt about that being possible and, as far as I am concerned, desirable. The problem is that there are many English-speaking persons who joined with us in voting for the republic but have not as yet joined our party, or may not wish to join our party. If that is so, my difficulty in appointing a person from the English-speaking group into the Cabinet increases. I sincerely hope that this will not remain the position. I sincerely hope that the ostracism with which English-speaking people felt they would be faced if they joined the Nationalist Party, may disappear once the republic becomes a fact. And I also sincerely hope that once that change takes place, what happened in the past will not be repeated, namely that when an English-speaking person, either a member of our party or not, is put into high office, he is denounced as a stooge. That should never happen. In this new South Africa, common to us all, we will have differences of opinion in regard to policy and on political issues. Differences on policy and between parties in this new situation when we shall have one common fatherland, should not make a person from either group a stooge or traitor to his group when he joins up with the other. We will now be one nation. I say that I will not in this republic of ours be able to look upon any Afrikaner who accepts the republic but joins up with any opposition party as a stooge, or call him such.

There is another method which has been suggested. That is that I should take into my Cabinet independents who supported the republican ideal but might differ from us in respect of other points of policy. Any parliamentarian knows, however, how difficult that is. He knows there is joint Cabinet responsibility, and how impracticable it is to appoint an Independent in Parliament, who officially represents no other point of view than his own. He may not even speak for the majority of English-speaking republicans if they also wish to remain independents in their way of thinking. It would be impossible to take such a person into a Cabinet, i.e. in spite of the principle of joint responsibility, to appoint somebody who opposes in public and in private many actions and principles which the Cabinet must perforce support in fulfilment of the mandate given by the electorate who have put it into power. Besides, such an Independent would also have to be provided by the Government with a seat either in the Senate or in the House of Assembly in spite of his differences of opinion with the Government. Any parliamentarian knows that to do this is just not practical since no province or constituency wishes to be represented by somebody who does not support its approved policies.

There is a third possibility and that is that there should be a Cabinet including members of the Opposition. I have already mentioned the difficulties which would then be created.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Surely there are Independents …

The PRIME MINISTER:

That hon. member suggested a little while ago, in another debate, that Mr. Boydell was disappointed with us. [Laughter.] Well, I must say I don’t laugh at Mr. Boydell. I have the highest respect for his South Africanism, and for much that he has done or attempted to do overseas to make South Africa better known as the good country it really is. But I must point out that when he makes the suggestion of a pact or a coalition, or whatever it might be, hon. members must know how impossible that is to-day.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Hear, hear!

The PRIME MINISTER:

Apart from the fact that if we should enter into a pact with either of the Opposition parties, the leaders who would most likely have to be taken into the Cabinet would also be of Afrikaner extraction, there is the fundamental difference of principle between us which prevents this. I am glad that hon. members on the other side immediately” acknowledge that, because although we in Parliament realize the great impossibility of any coalition or pact arising, and therefore of members of the Opposition parties being taken into the Cabinet of the Government party, people outside are left to think that I am unreasonable in saying so. When I say that it is impossible, it does not mean that I do not wish for unity. Therefore I always saw fit to stress that there is a great difference between political unity, which is impossible to achieve, and national unity, the attainable ideal of being one people. In the past when a pact was arranged in South Africa, there was a quite different situation. Then you had two Opposition parties opposed to the then Government. There was no pact between a majority Government in power and one of the Opposition parties for no reason whatsoever. Two minority Opposition parties made a pact in order to achieve governmental power, and the diversity of views between them was not as wide as that between us and the Opposition parties of to-day, nor as fundamental. They certainly had differences of opinion, but on certain fundamentals they were at one. Between Colonel Cresswell and General Hertzog there was, for instance, at no time any doubt about their similarity of outlook on the colour question, which is the basis of the differences between us to-day. The Pact was concluded in those days to remove the then Government, to come into power jointly, and that was possible owing to common policies. As the one main Government party increased its support the natural process took place and the Pact fell apart. For anybody to suggest that something similar—a pact— could be expected of a very strong party in power, as we are to-day, viz. that it should compromise on its principles, deviate from the policies on which it was brought to power by the electorate, just in order to include in the Government a party or parties which the electorate rejected because of its policies, would not only be a deviation from parliamentary practice, but would also be impossible from the point of view of what is politically feasible. It would mean that the Government in power should relinquish its mandate in order to enable the Opposition which has been put out of office because of its policies, to carry out part of its policies in spite of defeat. Such a request is simply not reasonable. It does not happen according to parliamentary practice anywhere. Therefore refusal of a pact or coalition is not test of our desire for unity. The test lies ever so much deeper. After analysing these suggestions, it therefore becomes quite clear that as far as the Cabinet situation is concerned, there remains only one way in which we can get English-speaking members into the Cabinet, i.e. that they must be members of the governing party. There is an alternative, namely, if English-speaking people who feel with us on all the main issues, although they might differ in details of procedure, could create a party of their own with which we could co-operate, and if that party could succeed in being represented in Parliament. It might certainly be possible to co-operate with such a party, but whether such a creation is feasible I do not know. I am inclined to think it is not. I am inclined to think that the only way for English-speaking people to participate in the Government is for those to join up with the Government Party who believe in its principles.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Or to defeat the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER:

Another suggestion has been thrown out as to how to achieve unity. That is that we should sacrifice certain of our principles. By sacrificing certain of our principles we would make it easier for greater unity to come about, so say some opponents. I have already dealt with this in passing. It means factually that the party in power, chosen for the very reason that it holds dear those principles which are believed in and supported by the majority of the electorate, and supported because it not only enunciates those principles but carries them out, would have to throw those self-same principles overboard. It must also be remembered that these principles are also supported by many who vote for the other side, as a huge correspondence seems to indicate. How on earth is it possible, I ask, to achieve greater unity by sacrificing those principles which the electorate wants its Government to carry out? Therefore when further demands are made on us as to how to promote greater unity in the political field, these facts must be taken into account. In addition I wish to re-emphasize that sacrifices for unity have been made and the undertakings given in that connection will be fulfilled to the utmost limit. I refer to those five points in respect of which I have given a straightforward outline of our standpoint.

I shall now proceed to deal with certain demands made by the Opposition parties in the first-reading debate. The first point was that we should make acceptance of the republic and the republican constitution dependent upon the guarantee that we will be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I have already explained that there will be a sincere effort upon our part to remain within the Commonwealth, but that attempt cannot be made at the price of the republic not being created. Can hon. members suggest anything which would make it more certain that members of the Commonwealth of Nations would infringe on our domestic rights than if such a suggestion were entertained? If I were to accept the proposition that becoming a republic should be made dependent upon a guarantee that we are to be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, then certain other nations would most undoubtedly make use of this to try and stop the republican development by interfering in our domestic affairs. Since I would have to oppose that, they would threaten that we would not be allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and thereby stop our becoming a republic. The will of the people as expressed on 5 October would be thwarted because of what is tantamount to a veto. Surely it is an unrealistic demand to make of us. Surely it is an impossible demand that other members of the Commonwealth should decide not only in regard to our membership but thereby be able also to decide on the future form of our state! In fact, an acceptance of such a proposal would mean nothing less than to invite a refusal for a change which we know some of the others would rather not have take place.

Apart from that, does the Opposition realize that if this happens it would perhaps be the beginning of the break-up of the Commonwealth itself? If we had to submit to such a form of interference, not only in our domestic affairs but in decisions over our future, the hon. members will realize that we would also interfere in the constitutions, the actions and the policies of other members of the Commonwealth including the United Kingdom. Do they realize what we and others could do if we wished to interfere in their internal affairs, if we wished to build upon what had then been done to us? If each member were to act in this way towards every other member, just imagine what a platform for continuous squabbles the Commonwealth would become instead of an organization for co-operation— in spite of all differences—in those fundamental matters of common concern which mean so much to the world to-day.

Therefore I say that if I were to accede to this part of the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I would not only be harming South Africa but I would also be doing harm to the Commonwealth itself; and it is in the Commonwealth that he feels he has such a big stake.

Then there was the second proposal, namely that we should introduce a number of entrenchments. If I had to introduce a number of entrenchments—not mentioned at present but possibly similar to those outlined in a recent Natal statement—then this would firstly mean, that I would be breaking my promise made to the electorate before the referendum, namely, that we would retain a constitution similar to that of the South Africa Act as it has developed to this day. It would secondly mean the introduction, presumably, of certain entrenchments creating more powerful Provincial Councils, which would be at least a partial development in the direction of a Federation. That is basically in contrast to what we have to-day, and to what the intention has been since Union. It is quite unfair to ask me both to break a promise and to change the character of the South African Constitutional set-up. I should like to remind the hon. member that the attack which was made upon us before 5 October was based on the suspicion that we wanted to change the Constitution. After it had become perfectly clear that we did not want to change the character of our Constitution but desired to retain the type of Constitution we have, the Opposition suddenly changed. Now it wants a different Constitution which we do not. Besides that, entrenchments of this kind would be nothing more than a bluff unless the sovereignty of Parliament was sacrificed. It would be a bluff because we would be changing from the British form of flexible system which we have had so far, to something similar to the American system. The latter system has however been based on quite a different background, and, unless followed with great consistency, unless we approach many matters quite differently, unless we change the entire character of the system in which we believe—unless we do all that, the American system would not be able to fit in with what would still remain of our present system. We as a Parliament have repeatedly decided that the sovereignty of Parliament must not be impugned. Consequently I cannot see how the hon. gentleman can ask me to introduce entrenchments within this Constitution, unless great changes were contemplated by him. I must also add that this would bring about all the evils of a rigid system. Nowadays, peculiarly enough, there seem to be quite a number of people who think that in a rigid system you get greater certainty instead of less. In the past one of the reasons for praise of the flexible system of Great Britain has been that changes can always be gradually introduced without any revolutionary action. If you look up Bryce, or any of the great constitutional lawyers of the time, you will find that much praise has always been given to the flexibility of the British system of Parliament, because, it was said, a nation never allows legal impediments to stand in its way. If people through Parliament cannot change laws by ordinary means then the people will change them by revolutionary means. It will not allow an entrenchment to stand in its way. The flexible system of Great Britain was praised by these constitutional lawyers for the very fact that it made gradual legal changes possible in accordance with the changes in the community brought about by time and circumstances. For that reason, too, I think it would be wise of us not to try to insist on a form of rigid constitution which would then mean that when changes have to be made they must be made in a revolutionary way. It would be wise of us to retain the flexibility of our present system, in accordance with the basis from which it has sprung.

The hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party made another suggestion. He suggested that we should change this Constitution into a multi-racial constitution. It is true that he said that it should be provided with certain so-called safeguards. But no safeguards are of any value. If a majority of Bantu gradually achieved power in South Africa, does the hon. member for one single moment believe that they would be deterred from overcoming those safeguards by any revolutionary means if it should suit their purpose? You can lay down safeguards for the White man now, and you can suggest to yourself that those safeguards will help you in the future. But they will not aid anyone. Does the hon. gentleman believe that any outside nation will say “These safeguards were introduced by the Progressive Party and therefore we now have to help those people, the minority groups—be they Whites or Indians or Coloureds—against the increasing power of the Bantu who have overthrown the safeguards for the minorities having a majority of voters or members now ”? Does he think that a single nation of the world would protect such minorities here for legal reasons? Would they not say what they are saying about the rest of Africa, that Africa is gradually finding its feet in an unorthodox way? It will be the same in this country. Therefore, by just accepting a multi-racial constitution and so changing the whole picture of South Africa and its constitutional development, you would bluff yourself if you believe that you can safeguard the White man or any other groups and their authority for the future. This would be an illusion. Such theories are quite unrealistic. We are not prepared to make this change. The only way in which you can evade such dangers, and the only basically correct and just policy for South Africa, is to retain the Constitution on the lines that we have to-day. By retaining such a Constitution we would ensure that the White man’s Parliament will be retained as we know it. It will continue as under present circumstances. At the same time we will develop the opportunities for self-government for each of the other groups in our midst. This Constitution before you today is based on this fundamental principle.

I have tried, in this part of my speech, to show how, in spite of the major differences between us, we still can enter upon a republic together, with goodwill. While accepting that we basically belong to one nation, each one can strive in his own way for what he believes best. My appeal is not for any form of political unity. My appeal is for the acceptance of the republic in the form of this Constitution which means sacrifices from all sides, so that we can build South Africa together. I wish to quote from an article in the Rand Daily Mail of this very morning. This article is actually an appeal to the Opposition. I cannot quote from any newspaper which differs more fundamentally from this side than does the Rand Daily Mail. This is a newspaper which supports the United Party to a certain extent, but which possibly leans more towards the Progressive Party than the United Party. The appeal of that newspaper reads as follows. I will not quote the first portion which leads up to this, but the main point is in the second part.

From a political point of view the main drawback of the stand the Opposition Parties are taking is that they appear to be seeking, in defiance of the decision of the electorate, to obstruct the coming of the republic by introducing fresh issues largely thought up since the referendum took place. This is especially so with the proposals for entrenching rights and devolving powers to the Provinces. Everyone knows these proposals stem from the outburst of resentment in Natal following the referendum, and are designed to canalize this feeling of frustration. Nowhere else in the country has there been any spontaneous demand among Opposition supporters for such provision. So once again the Opposition Parties seem to be expressing the sentiments of a die-hard British element, at the expense of wider viewpoints. The Opposition does, in fact, have a useful role to play in dealing with the republican legislation, and this is to scrutinize most carefully its details. This can be done in the Select Committee and latter stages of the Bill’s passage through Parliament. For the rest, it is our firm belief that the most constructive attitude the Opposition can adopt is to accept the republic for which the Government has gained a mandate, and to do everything it can to help improve the general national atmosphere in which it will be brought into being in a few months’ time.

The Rand Daily Mail, surely, is capable of expressing the opinion of a large proportion of the English-speaking population, and of the English-speaking anti-republicans. For once, therefore, I find myself in accord with the Rand Daily Mail.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

You must be wrong. Be careful!

The PRIME MINISTER:

Very, very seldom can it be said that I am in accord with the Rand Daily Mail, but for this once I am. I add to what they say, this appeal to hon. members to co-operate in creating the atmosphere which should be present when a nation, in the process of building itself, acquires a new form of government which will aid in achieving that basic unity which we all desire.

*I then come to the details of the Bill itself and I want to discuss some of the principles on which this Bill is based. In the first place it is a consolidating measure. Together with what is essential and what we have to retain in the South Africa Act and in its amendments, it also consolidates what is already to be found in diverse other constitutional enactments. In addition to that, certain provisions which had already become obsolete have been omitted, and there are other provisions which now have to fall away. I shall also refer to certain provisions which will have to fall away after 31 May. At the same time I want to say that advantage has also been taken of this opportunity, of course, apart from bringing about this consolidation, to obtain a better classification of provisions and thus to bring about a more logical grouping than we have had hitherto in our Constitution. The Constitution as a whole therefore will, I think—and lawyers testify that that is so—be more compact. In the first place therefore the South Africa Act and its amending Acts are being consolidated, as well as other Acts or the relevant portions of the following Acts: The Flags Act of 1927, the Flags Amendment Act of 1957, the Senate Acts of 1926, 1955 and 1960, the Status of the Union Act of 1934, the Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act of 1934, and the Letters Patent and Instructions to the Governor-General of 1937. I want to give a number of examples of existing provisions which do not form part of the South Africa Act and which have also been summarized in this Bill, because it may be of assistance to hon. members in studying this Bill with a view to the Committee Stage. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the National Flag and have been taken over from the Flags Act of 1927 and the amending Acts. Clause 6 contains the provisions of Section 4 of the Status of the Union Act together with the necessary adjustments. Clause 15 contains the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Royal Powers and Seals Act of 1934, although we are now making provision for just one Seal of the Republic instead of the present two. Clauses 29, 30 and 31 contain a summary of the provisions of the Senate Act of 1955, as amended in 1960, which have not been incorporated in Clause 34 because there is this separate Act, and the old provisions of the South Africa Act are being omitted, of course, because they fall away. Clauses 32 and 33 repeat the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Senate Act of 1960. Clause 34 contains the provisions of the Senate Act of 1926 and the relevant provisions of the Senate Act of 1955. Clause 41 refers, for the sake of completeness, to the Members of Parliament who are elected in terms of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act and the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951. Clause 61 incorporates, in addition to the provisions of Section 59 of the South Africa Act, the provisions of Section 2 of the Status of the Union Act of 1934 (which declares Parliament to be a Sovereign Legislative Authority) and of Section 2 of Act 9 of 1956 which deprives the courts of law of the power to give judgement on the validity of an Act of Parliament, except as far as the principle of bilingualism is concerned. Clause 102 has been adapted where necessary to the amendments made to the Railway Board Act, 1916, in connection with the functions of the Railway Board.

So much then in the first place as far as consolidation is concerned. This consolidation has also made it necessary for provision to be made for the repeal of a long list of Acts and portions of Acts, in terms of Clause 117 and the Schedule. As far as the South Africa Act is concerned the whole Act is being repealed except for a few clauses. Section 115 is a section which relates to the admission of advocates and attorneys. This is something which should not really form part of a Constitution and that is why it is not being incorporated in the Constitution Bill but it is nevertheless retained as part of our legislation because that is necessary until such time as we pass some consolidating measure in which this clause relating to legal practioners can be incorporated. It is being kept in obeyance therefore with a view to subsequent consolidating legislation which the Department of Justice may introduce at some time or other.

Then there are Sections 150 and 151 and those portions of the Schedule relating to the Protectorates. These parts are being retained because it is perfectly clear that those portions which relate to territory that was under the control of the British South Africa Company at the time, and to the Protectorates, are not matters that we can deal with here unilaterally to-day. There are other interested parties and it is perfectly clear therefore that these portions of the South Africa Act must be retained until discussions can take place at opportune times with those who also have an interest and a say in this matter.

*Mr. DURRANT:

What about the schedule?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

I have already mentioned the relevant part of the Schedule. First of all I want to give examples—because I should like hon. members to have clarity in regard to the changes which are being brought about—of obsolete provisions in the South Africa Act which have to be omitted. There is the old preamble which is no longer appropriate. There is the definition of the Sovereign’s heirs and successors and the application of the Act to the Sovereign’s successors; there is the proclamation of Union; there is the incorporation of the colonies in the Union; there is the application of the Colonial Borders Act; there is the appointment of and the application of the Act to the Governor-General; there is the original composition of the Senate; there is the Commission of Inquiry into the financial relations between the Union and the Provinces; there is the compensation to colonial capitals for diminished prosperity; there is the question of free trade throughout the Union. Obsolete provisions of this type must obviously disappear, and accordingly they have not been incorporated again in this Bill.

Then I want to refer to certain obsolete laws which fall away. There is, for example, His Majesty King Edward the Eighth’s Abdication Act, 1937. That is an Act which is mentioned in the Schedule as one which falls away. Similarly there is the Coronation Oath Act of 1937, the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1948 and the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1935. It stands to reason that these are Acts which have to fall away after 31 May 1961.

Apart from these provisions in the South Africa Act which obviously fall away, and apart from the other Acts which similarly fall away, there are also certain unnecessary sections. I want to mention just two examples. The one is that of an unnecessary section that we have omitted, not because it is not necessary for a change to a republic but because generally speaking it is simply unnecessary. The second is a section which should also fall away and which is tentatively being retained in the Bill but to which the Select Committee can give its attention. Because the necessity for its omission is perhaps not so obvious and apparent I thought I should retain it tentatively so that nobody can think that we are just deliberately leaving out parts. The first is Section 57 of the South Africa Act which is being omitted at this stage already. This section empowered Parliament to determine the powers and privileges of the two Houses and their members. Other legislation in this regard has been in existence for a long time, namely Act No. 19 of 1911. It has been possible to omit this section from the Bill even at this stage because as a sovereign legislative authority Parliament is in any event competent to-day to enact any law. That is why a clause of this kind which gives Parliament a specific power is no longer necessary. Then there is Section 35 of the South Africa Act which is still incorporated in the Bill as Clause 42 and which empowers Parliament to prescribe the electoral qualifications. We have retained this provision for the sake of completeness, but it seems to me it should also be omitted in view of the fact that Parliament has full legislative powers. The Select Committee can consider that aspect. That is what I wished to say about the consolidation and the elimination of dead wood. Those then are the provisions of the one part of this Bill.

Then a second principle is contained in the Constitution Bill. A number of new provisions have been inserted, and they all relate to the substitution of the Presidency for the Monarchy. It is these provisions therefore that are essentially new. I should like now to mention this series of clauses. In the first place there is a new preamble which is in accordance with present practice. I must say frankly that I as a layman would have preferred a preamble of a more emotional character, a preamble which would have said more about the fulfilment of ideals. However, viewed from a legal angle there is much to be said for simply retaining that which is essential and which relates directly to the contents of the Bill itself. For that reason the preamble is perhaps a little cold. But after all the preamble is a direct indication of the circumstances under which this Constitution is being created and of the spirit of the people and the nature of their legislation. Then there is Clause 3 which provides for the conversion of the Union into a Republic. It further provides that any reference in previous legislation to the Crown, the Union, the Sovereign and the Queen-in-Council, shall be construed after 31 May as references to the State President, the Republic, and the State President-in-Council, as the case may be. The clause further provides that the President will have the same prerogatives, powers and functions as the Queen possesses to-day, and that the present constitutional conventions will continue. This clause states specifically, and this is important, that the present constitutional conventions shall continue unchanged. Clauses 7 and 8—the other intervening clauses deal with the flag and such matters—provide for the election of the State President by an electoral college consisting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Assembly and for the procedure to be followed at such an election. Perhaps I might just indicate briefly why this procedure, that is to say, that of election by such an electoral college, has been decided upon. It is because the President will not be the head of the Government, but the State head. If he had been an executive President, the people as a whole would undoubtedly have had to make their choice themselves. On the other hand when the President is a constitutional head, the disruption caused by a nation-wide election is unnecessary and perhaps undesirable as well. The number of elections which have to be held and the decisions which the people themselves have to take, in addition to the provincial elections and the parliamentary elections, must not be further increased. That is why it was felt that in a case of this kind it would be best for an electoral college to take the decision. The already existing body which has been elected by the people themselves consists of the House of Assembly and the Senate. That is why the choice has fallen on them.

Clause 9 fixes the tenure of office of the State President at seven years, after which period he will not normally be eligible for re-election, unless the electoral college expressly decides otherwise. This method has been adopted because it is assumed that the person who is elected as President will normally be of a fairly advanced age, particularly since his function will be to be the focal point around which the love and desire for unity of the people must be united. Consequently the chances that a young man will be elected as President are not great. The intention is that he should be a person of dignity and a man of stature in the eyes of the people. Unfortunately it is a human characteristic that people are very ready to think that they should be re-elected. For that reason we are adopting the standpoint that the normal procedure should be that after having served for the reasonably long period of seven years, the person holding this post should not be eligible for re-election. That should be the normal procedure and the normal expectation. Consequently, as far as the President himself is concerned, he and his supporters cannot take the initiative in advance in order to make him available for nomination again. However, there may be a President who during his seven-year term of office has become such a force in the life of the nation and who is physically and mentally still so fit and well, that the people as a whole and the electoral college itself, which represents the people, will make it clear that they wish to retain that person. With a view to such exceptional cases, we are not making it completely impossible for such a person to be re-elected for an additional term. But then the electoral college itself must take the initiative. That then is the object of this somewhat unusual procedure. The same clause also provides for the procedure whereby the State President can, if necessary, be removed from office or resign of his own accord.

Clause 10 lays down who shall be the Acting President, whenever that becomes necessary. Clause 11 makes provision for an oath of office or a solemn affirmation to be made by the President or the Acting President. Clause 12 sets out the powers of the State President, powers which correspond to those at present exercised by the Queen or her representative under the existing law or the prerogatives and conventions as set out in the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions to the Governor-General of 1937. In this regard I just want to point out that there has been a controversy in the Press between certain lawyers as to what exactly the powers of the President are going to be, particularly with reference to his power to return Bills to Parliament. May I repeat quite clearly that the intention is undoubtedly that the President should be a constitutional head of State and that in all his actions, as has been the practice in the past, and as has also been the practice in respect of the Crown, he should act wherever possible on the advice of the Cabinet. I say “wherever possible” because there are certain functions in the carrying out of which such a head of State cannot be guided, for example in appointing the Prime Minister. In that case there is no Cabinet on whose advice he can make an appointment. The position therefore is that in such a case he has a certain amount of discretion. We appreciate nevertheless that even this discretion is hedged in by practical considerations. In practice it will be quite impossible for the President to make an arbitrary appointment. He must bear in mind the composition of Parliament and which person will enjoy the confidence and support of sufficient Members of Parliament to be able to form a Government. There is therefore an apparent absolute discretion, but both custom and practice ensure that he will have to act with a full sense of responsibility and in accordance with an established procedure.

In regard to the sending back of legislation, it is well known that the position in Britain is that the Head of State apparently has a right to veto, yet the King has never exercised it since time immemorial. In fact, much of the work in connection with legislation is not even handled personally by the Queen, as is the case here in regard to the Governor-General, but is delegated. The sending back of legislation, when that happens, therefore always happens in terms of the existing practice. Here also it only takes place in terms of the existing practice, as well as in terms of the Constitution, which means that it will take place on the advice of the Cabinet. Perhaps this is not specified as specifically in the Constitution as some people would like to have it, but to formulate it too narrowly would result in the President being practically nothing more than a glorified clerk in terms of the law. The responsibility for acting on advice flows, inter alia, from the fact that the President forms part of Parliament. At present Parliament consists of the Queen, the House of Assembly and the Senate. In future it will consist of the President, the House of Assembly and the Senate. Because of the inherent necessity for co-operation which flows from that, this means that in accordance with both practise and custom, the President, as far as the exercise of this duty is concerned, will exercise his right only in co-operation and therefore on the advice of the Cabinet. I hope that with reference to the dispute which existed, my unequivocal statement will now make it quite clear what the legal advice is on which the Bill as it stands here is based, and what is envisaged in the Bill. If the Select Committee wishes to devote further attention to it, we will give it all possible assistance.

Clause 13 provides for the protection of the dignity and honour of the President and his deputy. Clause 14 provides that there will be only one Seal for the republic instead of the Royal Great Seal and Small Seal. I may just say that experience has shown that we need only one Seal. In fact, a great country like the U.S.A. also has one Seal only. We are therefore doing nothing abnormal here. Clauses 16 and 17 provide for the salary of the State President and for the pensions payable to him and later to his widow. No change is being made there. I mention this merely in order to point out that, with a view to engendering due respect for the office of the President, better provision will be made administratively for the way in which his household is controlled and financed. There are existing provisions in respect of the household and certain expenses he is responsible for which make it appear that proper provision has not been made for the Governor-General, and in future for the President. These defects in the present arrangements, however, do not in the first place require changes to be made in the salary of the President. Changes are necessary only in regard to the organization and the financing of the household.

Clauses 18 and 19 provide for an Executive Council which will be different from the present position. As hon. members know, ex-Ministers to-day are also theoretically members of the Executive Council, but one never sees them there. It is practically a fiction. In future the Council will consist only of serving Ministers; for years already all governments function in that way. These clauses secondly provide for the appointment of Ministers of State by the President in terms of the present procedure, and also for the oath or solemn declaration which must be given. In this connection I just want to say that at a later stage I will refer to the number of Ministers. Clause 20 provides for the appointment and duties of Deputy Ministers, the oath they have to take, and also other details in regard to their remuneration, where a certain change is being suggested. Clause 54 provides for a new oath or solemn declaration which must be made by Members of Parliament to the President, instead of the present oath which is provided for in Section 51 of the South Africa Act. I just want to emphasize that the reason for the alternative of a solemn declaration in this case is mainly to cope with persons who have religious objections to taking an oath. There are such persons, but the circumstances which in the past made it necessary to take an oath or make a solemn declaration will be different in the republic. But at the same time this choice is provided for. The motive in providing for the making of a solemn declaration is nevertheless the possibility of religious objections being raised. We hope that no other objections will be raised, but if so, then there is this alternative.

Clauses 107 and 108 refer to the Judiciary. It appears to be something new, but the reason is that the provisions concerning the Supreme Court which were contained in the South Africa Act were provided for in 1959 in the Supreme Court Act. The reason for the insertion of these two clauses was that it was regarded as fitting that in the Constitution, in addition to the Executive and the Legislative Authorities, there should also be reference to the Judiciary. In other words, the details of the functioning of the Judiciary are contained in another Act, but it has to be indicated in the Constitution that there are these three pillars of authority in the State. Clause 116 provides that criminal prosecutions are to be instituted in the name of the State instead of the name of the King and that oaths or solemn declarations must be made to the republic. So much for everything which is new in the Bill.

Then there is a third principle. The first principle is that the Bill is a consolidating one; the second principle is that it indicates a new course, viz. the change from the monarchy to the republic. The third principle is that, whilst the State remains the same as before, the existing Parliament, in terms of the authority it has, gives a new form to the State and a new legislative authority. The State remains the same, but this Parliament, in terms of the authority it has, gives a new form to the State and creates a new legislative authority for the State, even though this new legislative authority retains all the characteristics of the present one, viz. two Houses of Parliament, a constitutional Head of State and a Cabinet. But seeing that these changes must be made and that this Parliament creates a new Parliament for the republic, certain transitional provisions are necessary. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) said in the Press that provision would have to be made for the transition period. He is correct, and that provision is being made. I therefore want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that there are transitional positions in regard to the continuation, firstly, of the pensions payable to the former Governor-General and his widow, viz. in Clause 17 (6); secondly, the continuation of the Departments of State and the appointment of Ministers, in Clause 19 (6); thirdly, the appointment of Deputy Ministers, in Clause 20 (4); the continuation of the Senate and the House of Assembly and their activities, in Clause 25, subsections (2) to (6); fifthly, the continuation of the last session of the Union Parliament which, on the resumption after 31 May, will also be the first session of the Republican Parliament. That is in Clause 26 (2). Then provision is also being made for the continued existence of Provincial Councils, in Clause 70 (3); for the term of office of Provincial Councils, in Clause 71 (4); the continuation of the sessions of Provincial Councils, in Clause 74 (2); the continued existence of the powers of Provincial Executive Committees, in Clause 82; the continuation of the work of Provincial Councils, in Clause 86 (3); the continuation of the debts of the Union which will be taken over by the republic, in Clause 100; the continuation of the rights and obligations, in terms of conventions, of the Union which will be taken over by the republic, in Clause 113. Criminal prosecutions and civil cases instituted against Ministers of State or the Administration are continued in terms of Clause 116 (2) (b) and 116 (3). In this way, therefore, provision is made for the continuation of all the necessary functions and for the legalization of everything which will have to be done in future.

As a fourth and last basic principle, I may mention that the language entrenchment is being retained. Clause 110 provides that Afrikaans and English will be the official languages and will be treated on an equal basis. Clause 2 provides that Afrikaans will also mean Hollands, and Clause 115 contains the entrenchment. Now it will be noted that there is a difference in wording which does not result in any difference in meaning, and that is that where in the South Africa Act it said: “Hollands means Afrikaans ”, it says here: “Afrikaans means Hollands ”. In the present set-up it is obvious that it should rather be worded in this way. It makes no difference to the meaning or the force of the provisions. Therefore no changes are being made here, and taking into consideration the sovereignty of Parliament both as it exists now and as it will exist in future, these clauses will have the same force after we have become a republic as they have now. I must emphasize that the entrenchment was written into the South Africa Act by an ordinary majority of the British Parliament, which was the creator of the South Africa Act. In the same way it is possible for this Parliament, which is the creator of the succeeding Parliament, to bind that Parliament by an entrenchment like this. I want to add further that it has been ascertained after thorough investigation by the law advisers that there is no doubt about the legality and the legal force of the inclusion in the Constitution Bill in this unchanged form of the entrenchment which exists at present. Should, however, this be queried before a Court, viz. the legality of what is no more than the unchanged inclusion in the new Constitution of the existing entrenchment, and should what is highly improbable happen, namely that the Court maintains the standpoint that it could not have been done, it still would make no difference to the situation. Then it would simply mean that just as some other sections of the South Africa Act which we now retain will remain legally enforceable, these clauses will also be retained and be legally enforceable. In other words, the entrenchment retains precisely the same force whether it is included in the new Act or whether that portion of the old Act remains in force in the future. For those reasons, according to our legal advisers, there is no doubt about the absolute legality of the language entrenchment. At the same time I want to say that if the Select Committee wants to investigate this matter more deeply and is able to evolve some other method of making it absolutely certain, it can be assured of the fullest cooperation of the Government. Therefore, we have no doubt in our minds as to the legal force of the retention of the language entrenchment.

Now in fairness I must point out a few minor differences between the Bill published in the Government Gazette of 9 December and the Bill I introduced here to-day. A number of words have been changed and grammatical mistakes have been corrected. I am not referring to that. Clause 7 (3) now provides that the first election of a State President must take place on a date before 31 May 1961, instead of before the Act comes into operation. That is necessary merely to ensure that the election of the President can take place before 31 May. Clause 8 (1) now provides that the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency must be accompanied by the written acceptance of that nomination by the nominee. That is really obvious, but it was not stated quite so clearly. Clause 8 (5) now becomes 8 (5) (a), and we have inserted sub-section (b) to provide that when two candidates or more, who obtain the least number of votes, receive the same number of votes, the electoral college decides by means of a separate vote which of those candidates is to be eliminated in terms of paragraph fa). That is merely in order to prevent a deadlock being arrived at, because otherwise there must be an adjournment every time and a new sitting must be arranged.

The following words have been added at the end of Clause 26 (2): “And such a resumed session shall be the First Session of the First Parliament established by this Act.” That is to put beyond doubt, with reference to what I said was a transition period, what the legal position of Parliament will be after the recess of 31 May.

I have already announced that the Constitution Bill will after the second reading be sent to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses for consideration. I trust that hon. members of that Committee will co-operate in order to make something as good as possible of this Constitution. I just want to mention a few more points which will probably require attention by the Select Committee. The one is a matter of language. Hitherto in Afrikaans we have been referring to the “Republiek van Suid-Afrika There is no doubt that the English term “Republic of South Africa” is correct, and that will remain, but in Afrikaans the word “van” in this context has a somewhat different meaning from “of” in English. For that reason the philologists and the Taalkommissie of the Academie prefer “Republiek Suid-Afrika But “Republiek van Suid-Afrika” is not regarded as quite wrong philologically. It is described as not being equally good but it is felt that, because it will affect the name of our country, we would rather leave this decision to be taken after joint consultation. Therefore instead of changing it in this Bill, we refer this point also to the Select Committee. Secondly, it is suggested that perhaps we should not make the Chief Justice one of the possible deputies for the President. The idea hitherto has been that when the President is not available some impartial person of high standing should deputize. The President of the Senate is being indicated as the person who in the first place should deputize, and if the President of the Senate is not available either, then the Speaker of the House of Assembly. This also emphasizes the dignity and the link between the other two parts of Parliament with the first part of it, the President. We further had the idea that in case both of them were not available, provision should be made for that contingency, and that provision must be linked to a post. There should be no uncertainty as to the third alternative person to act as the Acting President. It may, however, create the impression that it derogates from the status of the Judiciary and its dignity if the person, who is then the Chief Justice, is placed in the third position. Therefore it has been suggested that perhaps we should keep the Judiciary completely away from the post of Acting President by, if necessary, giving the Cabinet the responsibility, in the very exceptional case where the first three persons are not available, for appointing somebody temporarily, until one of the others is available again. This matter will, however, also be left to the Select Committee.

Clause 19 provides for the number of Ministers, which is now 16. I did not initially want to make any change there because I had given a promise to retain the legal provisions as they stand at present as far as possible. However, I now want to request the Select Committee to make a change in the Bill and to increase the number to 18 in view of the new Departments, some of which I feel should be handled by a person who can practically give his full attention to them. I am thinking of Coloured Affairs, the development of a Department of Asiatic Affairs, and a Department of Immigration. We feel that this increase in numbers is desirable, but as compensation for it the provision for the number of Deputy Ministers in Clause 20 may be changed and their numbers may be decreased. This matter will also be submitted to the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have almost concluded. I want to point out that during the referendum campaign I gave an undertaking in regard to the Republican Constitution. I know there were doubts that I would keep my word, but I hope that hon. members are now convinced that what I have submitted to them to-day is in consonance with every iota of the promises I made, viz. that we would submit a Constitution based on the South Africa Act and the constitutional developments that have taken place; that we would retain unchanged our existing democratic institutions and practices, as was desired; that we would retain the Christian character of our State and write it into the Constitution, as has always been the position; and that we would guarantee the language and other rights and be just as faithful to them and claim them as a joint possession of the nation, as they have become or should have become in the course of our recent history. I hope hon. members will note that we are retaining the parliamentary form of Government with a different Head of State and Head of the Government, the two Houses of Parliament, a Cabinet and the parliamentary procedure, also completely in consonance with everything we undertook to do. We have faithfully carried out every single promise. Obviously the form of Government will, however, not only bring about another great change—a change both in the form and in the spirit of our country—but it will give our people a Constitution which for the first time will really be the creation of the Parliament of South Africa. With all due respect for what we have, viz. the Constitution which we have had for 50 years, and recognizing the fact that we ourselves could amend that Constitution and have often done so, the basis of it, the South Africa Act, was given to us by the Parliament of another country. This time we are giving our own Constitution to our own fatherland. In that sense it will have a deeper meaning for us because its existence is due to our own free will and our own deliberations alone. In saying that I am not belittling the fact the Act containing the Constitution which was given to us in 1910 by the British Parliament was the fruit of a National Convention which sat here in South Africa. I am not belittling that in the least. Nevertheless, whilst I appreciate what we had and how it came about, that cannot derogate from my gratitude and joy because of the fact that our Union Parliament is now itself able to give a Constitution to the Republic of South Africa.

In addition, the Republican Constitution which will be adopted by our own Parliament is being given to posterity. It is based on our traditions and in fact on the traditions of both elements of our population. It is not based only on the traditions of one element of the population alone; it comes from both. It is now our joint creation, and it is born out of our common history. In a certain sense it is also based on a common sacrifice, and in that sense it must bring us nearer to one another. It must have a great and intimate and deep meaning to us all. It is based on our own past; it is our own creation today and our own gift to posterity. At the same time this Constitution is the commencement of development, and not the end of it. No Constitution of any nation is always the end. It is the beginning of new life, of constitutional growth, the beginning of an evolution towards a future. We are leaving to posterity a foundation on which to build. I ask that we should give this foundation in a good spirit, wholeheartedly and in a nice manner. Those who follow us must be able to feel that they are building on something which was left to them as a great and rich heritage. We ourselves built on the heritage of the past. We were not satisfied to leave matters as they were. Nor do our heirs accept this new Constitution as being the end of all constitutional development. We ask them, however, to take every step in this development with the greatest respect for what has been given to them and, imbued with a great sense of responsibility, to change nothing which helps to create unity. The future is not in our hands, but the laying of the foundation is. I lay this Constitution in your hands and in the hands of those who will follow us. I move.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Sir, in his closing words the hon. the Prime Minister has referred to the legislation which is before us to-day as something of our own, something which has grown out of ourselves. I hope that history will prove that it is as much a South African creation as was the creation of the National Convention in 1909 and 1910, when we saw perhaps one of the greatest acts of faith in our history, when people who a short time before had been fighting each other were able to come together in a spirit of goodwill and true South Africanism to build up something for the future of South Africa. When I say that, Sir, then I say that the Constitution and the Bill which the hon. the Prime Minister has placed before us to-day, will have to live up to a very high standard if it has to achieve anything like that which was achieved in the past.

Listening to the hon. gentleman, apart from the extremely detailed and very thorough review which he gave of the Bill and its various aspects, for which I am sure everybody is extremely grateful and which was most helpful to an understanding of what had been changed and what was retained and what differences there were between the Bill as originally published in the Gazette and as published in the Bill now before the House, there seemed to me to be three very special aspects of the speech by the hon. gentleman. The first had reference to the sacrifices which he claimed those in favour of a republic had made in placing legislation before this House in this way. The second had to do with his reasons for refusing certain proposals made at the first reading and impliedly refusing in advance any suggestions of the kind made at the second reading, and thirdly the fact that the hon. gentleman seemed to think it entirely unnecessary to make out any case for his Bill at all. He seemed to assume that because it had had support in the referendum, therefore it was a foregone conclusion that it ought to be supported in this House. Now, Sir, let us examine first of all the sacrifices which the hon. gentleman says are being made by those who are in favour of a republic. He points out that it was not always the idea that such a republic should be within the Commonwealth and he shows how in the past it would not have been possible to be a republic and remain within the Commonwealth. Now it is possible, and it is referred to as one of the sacrifices which is being made by those in favour of a republic in the interests of getting a republic which everyone can support. Sir, we have always heard from hon. members opposite that whether or not we remained in the Commonwealth was something which was going to be decided purely in the interests of South Africa. Must we understand from what the hon. gentleman said to-day that they are agreeing to our continuing as Commonwealth members even if it is not in the interests of South Africa?

The PRIME MINISTER:

No, surely it is in our interests.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. gentleman says that it is in the interests of South Africa …

The PRIME MINISTER:

… to have unity.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Oh, I see. In other words, it is not in the interests of South Africa to remain in the Commonwealth, it is only in the interests of unity. Sir, it is against illogicalities of this kind that one has to guard when a case of that sort is made out by the hon. gentleman, because when you look into the other so-called sacrifices that have been made, have they been made in the interests of South Africa or in the interests of a republic? I say that in every single case those concessions have been made because they are in the interests of South Africa and they are not concessions by the pro-republicans to the anti-republicans, and I think, Sir, that when you look at them one by one you will find out how really ridiculous that assertion made by the hon. the Prime Minister is.

Mr. FRONEMAN:

Join a school debating society.

Mr. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we listened with the greatest patience to the hon. the Prime Minister. I think we did not interrupt him once. I hope our leader is going to be given an equal opportunity of putting the case from this side without interruptions.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. gentleman has told us that were he to accept certain proposals made at the first reading, proposals in respect of guarantees in the Constitution, he would be breaking faith. But he has also told us that it was the desire of the republicans to have a Constitution based on the Constitution of the old model republic. The old model republic had an entrenchment in its Constitution providing for a three-quarters majority at two successive sessions. If they want that and we want entrenchment, where is the breach of faith? The hon. gentleman has said that for him to concede now that he is not to go ahead with his republic unless it is assured that it is in the Commonwealth is going to give a right of veto to other states to interfere in our internal affairs. Sir, the first point which arises is this: Should he not have thought of that when he first announced his intentions to go ahead with legislation of this kind? The second point is: Which is more important to him—becoming a republic for sentimental reasons or to have all the advantages of remaining within the Commonwealth? And then, Sir, one is faced with the third of the sort of departments into which the hon. gentleman’s speech fell. He says this is not the final end; this is but one stage in our development; we are going ahead by means of evolution. Where are we going, Sir? Is this just a convenient stopping place in order to get the republic and are we going to go ahead with a lot of those proposals which he and members on that side of the House favoured in the past once a republic has been obtained, or have those ideas been finally thrown overboard? We seem to have had an assumption on that side of the House that they have a mandate from the public for introducing this legislation, a mandate given them by the people of South Africa on 5 October 1960. I want to say at once that I cannot deny that they received a majority of the votes of those who cast their votes on that day, yet I think it would be remiss of me if I did not place on record that the hon. gentleman cannot claim the support of the majority of the people of South Africa. Because while it may be true that in consulting only the White voters of South Africa, he was acting in accordance with the Constitution of his party, he was certainly not acting in accordance with the South African Constitution as it existed at that time, because that Constitution made provision for the Cape Coloured voters to have a vote, and that vote was denied them on 5 October; nor was any effort made whatsoever to ascertain the views of the Native population of South Africa whose future form of government was also being determined on 5 October. Now, Sir, I cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Cape Coloured people. They have their own representatives in this House, representatives who no doubt will express their views and speak on their behalf, nor can I claim to represent the Native people of South Africa, although their representatives until recently in Parliament seemed to have no liking whatever for this change. But I can claim to speak on behalf of the 775,000 people who on 5 October voted “no” to the proposals of the hon. the Prime Minister. And, Sir, they constitute no less than approximately 48 per cent of the electorate who cast their votes on that day, and to them this Opposition, we on this side of the House, owe a responsibility and that responsibility is to place before this Parliament, which is to take a final decision, the objections which they have to the proposals in the Bill now before the House, objections which are as valid to-day as they were on 5 October when they cast their votes in that referendum. In my view we also owe a further responsibility and that is to keep fresh before the minds of hon. members opposite and to keep fresh before the hon. the Prime Minister himself the hopes and expectations of many of those who voted for a republic on 5 October, hopes and expectations which were to a large extent stimulated and exploited by the propaganda of hon. members opposite and of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The motives of those who voted against the republic were diverse as were the motives of those who voted for a republic. Amongst those who voted against the republic were many who voted in that way, possibly thousands upon thousands, because of their deep attachment to the institutions of the monarchy as such. There were many who voted against the republic because they believed that a monarchical form of government with the monarchy entirely out of politics, was a better form of government than a republic in which the President inevitably would be within the sphere of politics, with the best will in the world. There were thousands also who voted against the republic because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the bringing into being of a republic was against what they called the contract of Union. Many thousands too voted “no” although they were republicans because they felt that this was the wrong time for a change of this kind, and because they felt that this was the wrong Government to be charged with undertaking this task in South Africa.

Mr. VON MOLTKE:

They must have been silly.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

The hon. member says they must have been silly. Perhaps they knew him a great deal better than he knows himself. But, Sir, in all this diversity I believe there were three considerations which were shared by the overwhelming majority of those who voted against the republic.

*Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

But surely the referendum is something of the past.

Mr. MITCHELL:

You are the Chief Whip; behave yourself.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

You have it again: The referendum is past and what the referendum said must now be slavishly obeyed by the hon. members opposite. Anyone who had objections must forget about them because by the mere fact that a small majority voted against their objections, those objections have ceased to exist. That is the attitude of the Chief Whip, and if that is his attitude he is never going to get unity in South Africa and he is never going to get unity under this republic. Sir, I believe there were three motivating factors which were shared possibly by the overwhelming majority if not by every republican voter. I think the first was the very real fear that the establishment of a republic might endanger our relations with the Commonwealth and lead to even greater isolation of South Africa than that under which South Africa suffers at the moment. I think the second was the growing apprehension amongst those people that the establishment of a republic so far from creating national unity might stimulate, might accentuate, the unhappy divisions that already exist among our people at the present time; and I think the third was the suspicion, even more well-founded perhaps than one suspected at the time, that a majority vote for the republic would be interpreted by the Prime Minister and by this Government as an endorsement of the rigid and the negative policies which he has been forcing upon the Nationalist Party in the recent past, and as a mandate to apply that policy even more strictly and more severely than he had done in the past, and to apply them with even greater inelasticity. Sir, I think this House would be well-advised to bear in mind that all those considerations are still influencing the thinking and the minds of hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa; are still influencing the minds of approximately one-half of the European electorate in South Africa, because, Sir, they were not removed, they were not extinguished by the mere fact that the hon. the Prime Minister obtained a slender majority on 5 October for his republican proposals. There is another fact which members should note, a fact which is perhaps as significant, if not more significant, than those which I have already mentioned, and that is that the overwhelming majority of those who voted for the republic, those who supported the proposals of the Government, had motives which had a strong correspondence to the motives, the fears, of those who voted against the republic. One knows, of course, that they voted for the republic for diverse reasons. There were some who voted for the republic because they wanted revenge; there were some who voted for the republic because they regarded it as necessary for the seal upon their independence. There were even some who preferred a republican form of government to a monarchical form of government for what I can describe as academic reasons, constitutional reasons—matters of personal preference—but nevertheless on the whole the things that were the subject of our fears were, I think, very largely also the subject of the hopes of those who voted in favour of the republic. May I give you some examples Mr. Speaker. I believe that while we feared for our Commonwealth membership they, under the impact of the propaganda of the Prime Minister and of members opposite, believed that our continued membership of the Commonwealth was automatic, that it was in fact no problem, and I believe they believed more. They believed that once the monarchy in South Africa was abolished, a monarchy which to them was a source of dissension, as many of them believed it to be, our membership of the Commonwealth would be more secure and more generally accepted as the boon which it is to South Africa at the present time. I think, secondly, while those against a republic feared that national unity would receive a set-back with the advent of a republic, those who voted for the republic genuinely believed that its coming, by removing what they regarded as an impediment, as a source of dissension, as an impediment in the way of national unity, would make possible a wider and more embracing unity, certainly between the English-and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. I think, thirdly, while we feared a misinterpretation of the mandate by the hon. the Prime Minister, they saw the matter in a different light. In their opinion the republican idea of the Nationalist Party was over-riding to such an extent that it had the effect of stifling in that party any free thinking, any desire to act on their own or think on their own, any free interplay of opinion. They saw that the extremists in that party could always claim that anyone who has his own views and his own ideas should be forced into subordination because it would be insisted that any diversion of views, which was contrary to the party machine, contrary to the ideals of the party as such, was an act which would delay and hinder the coming of the republic in South Africa. I believe that many of them believed that the achievement of the republican ideal would make possible a greater fluidity and a greater moderation in the politics of South Africa. I think it would be simple to establish the accuracy of the statements by reference to speeches and statements by hon. members on both sides of the House during the referendum battle, but I do not believe it is necessary. I believe any member on that side and any member on this side of the House who searches his heart on those issues will come to very much the same conclusions and he will appreciate the truth of what has been said in that regard. It is because of that and against that background, Mr. Speaker, that I want to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Constitution Bill inter alia because—
  1. (a) the Government is unable to give an unequivocal assurance that the proposed republic will remain within the Commonwealth; and
  2. (b) the legislation fails to guarantee such basic rights as will advance national unity in South Africa.”.

My purpose in moving this amendment in these terms is both to pinpoint the fears of the anti-republicans and to lay emphasis upon the aspirations of what I believe to be amongst those who supported the republic, because there is no doubt that the thought of a fresh start was uppermost in the minds of most of those who voted for a republic, and indeed this idea of a fresh start, this hope that with the advent of the republic and a change in the Constitution there might come a fresh start, was also present in the minds of many members of this party when members of three provincial councils put forward resolutions asking for guarantees and assurances that could remove their fears and their disquiet, their unhappiness, and that could found greater hopes for national unity in the future. Now, Sir, may I say at once that we are well aware in South Africa from our experience in the past that pious protestations written into a constitution are not in themselves inviolable guarantees that those provisions will be maintained and observed at all times, even if they are protected by one or other form of entrenchment. Nor do I believe it is possible to give absolute protection by way of entrenchment of any kind, for every right that you afford to an individual is subject to inescapable qualifications for the protection of other members of the state and the rights of society as a whole. But I think that ultimately history has proved, not only in South Africa, but virtually everywhere else in the world, that no constitutional guarantee can be stronger than the will of a nation to be bound by it, and that constitutional guarantees are only effective if they reflect the character and the genius of the people to whom they apply. It is here, Sir, that we South Africans may be missing a wonderful opportunity owing to the intransigence of the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite. Because when suggestions were made to the hon. gentleman by the provincial councils, he could have given a positive response …

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Not all the provincial councils, only one.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

To help the hon. gentleman, let me say that such a proposal was made by the Natal Provincial Council, and there was also a proposal proposed by the minority parties in two other provinces. Nevertheless, there could have been a positive response by the hon. the Prime Minister which could have led to a distillation, after discussion, of something in the nature of a South African manifesto which might have secured the support of all parties and would therefore have been truly binding upon us. Of course, Sir, I believe that you can only get real entrenchments to-day with the consent of all parties, and only then will they be effective if they represent truly the genius and character of the people concerned. I believe such an agreement could have been a source of pride, not only to the South African people to-day, but also to our children in the future. It could have been a declaration of faith to the world in regard to fundamental principles upon which all South Africans are agreed, fundamental principles which they all want to be observed in the future, a set of rules within the confines of which political parties could have fought out their differences but which would have operated as a general guide to all South Africans in the time that lies ahead. I think the fact that various proposals and varying proposals were forthcoming should have been proof that there was no attempt at dogmatism at all, no suggestion of intransigence on our part. They were only attempts at initiating the discussions which could have led to the formulation of common principles, common ideas, a common charter for all the people of South Africa. Sir, what has been the reaction of the hon. the Prime Minister and members of the Government opposite? By the very fact that this legislation has been introduced into this House at a separate Sitting of the two Houses of Parliament, a separate Sitting of a bi-cameral Legislature, it has been made absolutely clear that the hon. gentleman and hon. members opposite are not even prepared to give consideration to these possibilities. One knew of course that the Government’s view has been that because “we fought the referendum, we must accept the result ”, and that without any strings attached. Mr. Speaker, we had no alternative but to fight a referendum. We could not let it go by default, and it was quite clear that we had no choice. There were serious differences at the time when the Referendum Bill came before the House as to the form that the referendum should take and as to the manner in which it should be conducted. Be that as it may, we had to fight according to the Government rules or not fight at all, and the last thing we could do was not to fight at all. That is one difficulty, but there is a more serious one and that is that this Government has interpreted the result of this referendum according to its own ideas and not even according to the rules and the constitution of its own party. Those rules provide for a decision based “on the broad will of the people”. Can anybody on the other side suggest for one moment that a majority not even sufficient to fill Ellis Park at a rugby test match represents the broad will of the people of South Africa? Can anyone suggest that that is what men like Dr. Malan and Mr. Strydom thought of when they spoke of the broad will of the people? No, Mr. Speaker, from the moment the results became known we had one attempt after another to interpret this as a substantial majority, a large majority, a majority representing the overwhelming majority of the people. But, Sir, when you come down to it, what is it? Two per cent either way has given the decision in this regard, and, Sir, it is particularly noticeable and remarkable when one has regard to the fact that the electorate which made this decision is not even representative of all the people of South Africa. Now because of this bare majority, it must be faced that if the Government uses its huge unrepresentative majority in Parliament to force this measure upon the House, without any regard or consideration whatever for the views of practically half the electorate, then they must realize that in the nature of things this republic at its inception is going to be a sectional republic, is not going to be a truly South African republic, and whether it will ever become a truly South African republic, is going to depend upon this Government. The onus is upon them.

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

On you.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Why is the hon. Minister not prepared to consider certain of the desires of this side of the House in drafting this constitution?

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

Have you shown any desire to co-operate in any way?

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Our offers have been made.

The MINISTER OF LANDS:

They were not offers, they were demands, an excuse to oppose the legislation.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I am so glad that the hon. Minister at last has been roused to make that statement, because that is the attitude of that side of the House: They are always right, nobody else is right, nobody else has a desire or claim, nobody has the interest of South Africa at heart. They know what is right and they are going to force it down our throats whether we like it or not. Up to now there has been very little indication that the Government dominated by those in power at present can create the atmosphere in which this republic or any other republic can grow into a truly South African republic. Look at the explanation the hon. the Prime Minister gave this afternoon. During the referendum we heard about co-operation, not between anti-republicans and pro-republicans, but cooperation between the races. We heard suggestions that the English-speaking people should form their own conservative party which could perhaps co-operate with the Nationalist Party. No sooner was the referendum over, Sir, than we heard that if they wanted any representation they should join the Nationalist Party. The hon. gentleman knows very well that it is not only the English-speaking people who were against this republic. Approximately one-third of the Afrikaans-speaking people must have voted against the republic if he claims any support from the other section at all. What about their views? No, Mr. Speaker, I see no signs as yet of any change of heart on that side of the House, I see no indication that this change can bring about greater national unity than exists at the present time. I want to warn very frankly and very honestly that, unless there is a change of heart, we will go ahead as a divided people because of the actions of that side of the House.

Mr. SCOONBEE:

A change of heart on your side is very necessary.

Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

I think at the same time we are entitled to ask whether the Government appreciates the very heavy onus that rests upon it to see that the suggestion is made to the people that our Commonwealth membership will not be affected by becoming a republic, is going to be honoured in fact. Hon. members opposite must be aware that for some years now certain members of the Commonwealth have harboured doubts about the propriety of South Africa’s continued membership. They have wondered whether it was possible for the Commonwealth to go ahead with such a divergence of views. They have wondered about our membership of that world organization, and we on this side of the House warned the Government last year in the no-confidence debate, when the hon. the Prime Minister first announced his intentions, of the dangers that lay ahead, that we were in fact creating an occasion for critics of our social policies to give practical expression to their doubts about it. We warned that it could mean exclusion from the Commonwealth. I want to say again that I sincerely hope, and every single member on this side of the House hopes, that that will not happen, and that we shall do everything in our power to see that it does not happen. I believe that all members of the Commonwealth cannot be unaware of the fact that the vast majority of the people of South Africa who have a vote and the vast majority of those who have not got a vote and did not vote in this referendum, earnestly desire to remain within the Commonwealth family. I do think at the same time that the duty rests upon the hon. the Prime Minister to see to it that the world knows that and that Commonwealth members are aware of it. We on this side of the House desire to remain in the Commonwealth, not only because of the advantages which flow from the membership, but also we believe that the Commonwealth experiment is something which is worth while preserving, worth while developing, worth while strengthening, and we are convinced that South Africa has a contribution to make towards its success. After all the Commonwealth owed much at its inception to the genius of General Smuts and in its years of development to the influence of General Hertzog. We can say that few dominions have played as great a part as South Africa in developing the Commonwealth to its present stage and its present status. It is not a foreign institution, Mr. Speaker, it is something to which we have made a very big contribution, it is something which we ourselves have helped to build up. And when we say that we can make a contribution, we think of the contributions we have made in the past and how we stood by the Commonwealth in difficult times, and we say that it has had many advantages for us which I believe are appreciated by all parties. It has been the organization in which we felt most at home, the organization which has understood our difficulties best and on the whole has been most sympathetic in respect of our problems. It has given us a status in the world, in international affairs, which no small country could have had otherwise, no small country which is without friends which are not powerful or was a member of some big alliance. It has given us sources of information, of technical knowledge, which has contributed to our spectacular development. It has given us opportunities for consultation and the exchange of views in an informal manner within the family circle. It has given us the opportunity to make informal contact amongst other members who share the same views and ideas as we do. It is something unique, something irreplaceable in the world as we know it at the present time. And within that framework we have enjoyed, and still are enjoying, certain economic advantages which originally derived from that membership, and the future of which is so closely bound with Commonwealth membership that there is no certainty that we shall continue to enjoy those advantages indefinitely should we cease to have membership of the Commonwealth. We too have made our contribution and I hope we can continue to do so. We have always stood firmly on the side of the countries of the West, no matter from what side they were threatened. Nor have we ever put ourselves up for auction to the highest bidder on the Western side or on the communist side. We have offered stable government over a large area of Africa, whether people agree with our policies or not, and we have offered it over a vast area of an Africa which has often been in turmoil during that period. And I believe that it is perhaps in Africa that we can make our greatest contribution to the Commonwealth by seeking solutions of the problems of people of different colours living together within the framework of one state.

Sir, I think insufficient has been made of the fact that should we be excluded, a precedent would be created in respect of the relationship between Commonwealth members, the compass and future development of which no one can foretell at the present time. The extent of its potential for future mischief is Something which no one can foretell or foresee with any certainty, as things stand at the present time. It might even hold in it the seeds for the future break-up of the Commonwealth as we know it at the present time.

It is against this background that we must judge the action of the hon. the Prime Minister He can give us no guarantee to-day that our continued membership of the Commonwealth is assured, and, at the end of this debate, we will be asked in Parliament to take a decision with one of the major factors which should be known in the interest of our people, completely unsolved. He can’t even say to-day that he has taken adequate steps to focus the attention of Commonwealth members, their Press and their public, on the position of South Africa and its desire to remain within the Commonwealth. The tragedy is that, should Commonwealth membership be lost, it will probably be lost for all time. In fact, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is asking us in this legislation to take two steps which will probably be final and irrevocable, because, in addition to Commonwealth membership, all the probabilities are that if the monarchy is once abolished, that, too, will have gone for ever.

Now the hon. gentleman has dealt in great detail with the Bill. I don’t propose to follow him in that discussion, save to draw attention to the fact that there are certain powers which the president can exercise without the advice of the Executive, which seems somewhat extraordinary. One is the power of veto. The other thing which is extraordinary is that while we have always thought we had an Executive, a Judiciary and a Legislature in South Africa, we now find that the administration of justice as stated in this Bill will be under the control of the Minister of Justice as part of the Executive. In other words, the Judiciary now becomes subordinate to the Executive. I don’t propose to take those matters any further. When this Bill after the second reading is sent to a Select Committee, these matters can be discussed in full detail. But I want to say very firmly that as things stand at the present time, we cannot support the legislation which the hon. Prime Minister has introduced to-day. We want to tell him that a very great onus rests upon him in the interest of future unity in South Africa. He has the power to force through this legislation. He has to run the risk of the hardening of the existing division and the hardening of existing animosity, or he has the opportunity of creating a situation in which it might be possible for him to bring about a new start, a new start which 80 per cent of the people of South Africa want and which they are not getting in the legislation before us to-day. I therefore move my amendment.

Mr. HOPEWELL:

I second the amendment.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (JNR.):

As the hon. the Prime Minister correctly stated, we are dealing here with one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before this House, and therefore it grieves me particularly that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a man for whom I have the greatest regard, introduced his speech in this debate by making a statement such as he did; in other words, that he said that we on this side, and he said it particularly with reference to the Prime Minister’s speech, are not interested in remaining a member of the Commonwealth, but are interested only in national unity and that we, because we say that we are interested in membership of the Commonwealth, therefore dare not take any step which would jeopardize our membership of the Commonwealth. I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made this statement. Surely he is also a man with a sense of values. He knows that there is something such as higher values, and the hon. the Prime Minister has said that because we regard it as being in South Africa’s interests we will try to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Not only did the hon. the Prime Minister say so this afternoon, but he said it throughout the whole of the referendum campaign we waged before 5 October, and not only did he say it but we all did. However, right throughout the people of South Africa were clearly told that although we regarded it as important for the Union of South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth, we considered it of greater interest to become a republic for reasons which we mentioned then and which I again want to indicate briefly, and on that basis we won and the people of South Africa gave a very clear decision. In other words, to put it very simply and clearly, we say that it is in the primary interest of South Africa to become a republic, but not only is it in the interest of South Africa to become a republic, but when the primary object of becoming a republic has been achieved we would regard it as being in the best interests of our country to remain a member of the Commonwealth, if possible. That was the standpoint we adopted throughout and the electorate of South Africa were under no illusions in regard to this matter. The electorate was given to understand that in the first place, if they gave their decision, South Africa would become a republic, inside or outside the Commonwealth. That is of primary importance, but if they decided that South Africa should become a republic the Government and everybody on this side would do their utmost to allow South Africa to remain a member of the Commonwealth. If South Africa cannot succeed in that it will not be as the result of her own actions, and then nothing can be done about it. Then South Africa at any rate becomes a republic because that is regarded as being of primary importance. This is the way the matter was put to the people of South Africa, and on that the people gave their decision very clearly. Therefore I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced the debate from his side in this way, because even he is a man with a sense of values who knows that one value counts for more than another.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made another accusation which I do not think was worthy of him, viz. that the Government in the struggle for a republic, framed this legislation in this way, and that the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech this afternoon took the colour it did merely to enable us to become a republic, and that when once we have the republic we will make changes to it. Am I interpreting the Leader of the Opposition correctly?

*Sir DE VILLIERS GRAAFF:

Evolution and not revolution.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (JNR.):

Precisely, that is the whole point, but still he and the people of South Africa were repeatedly told that we cannot bind future generations and all we can say is that we now view the matter in this way, that this is the republic as we see it now and this is how it will be, and the proof of the fact that the Government is keeping its word is this very Bill which is presently before us. But it is obvious that we cannot bind future generations. Of course there will be evolution, as we have had evolution in the past. Naturally in the course of time future generations will make changes if they find it necessary to do so.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mention a few of the things you have in mind which may be changed.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (JNR.):

As the hon. member knows, the monarchial constitution we have to-day has also repeatedly been changed. The position in a democratic state is that one cannot bind future generations, and in future it may happen that another generation views matters completely differently as the result of changed circumstances. Therefore we cannot bind them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came here to-day with suggestions for completely changing this constitution. I do not blame them if they think that such changes should be made. But by so doing he in fact proved that in no democratic state can one bind future generations to the present arrangements. Changing circumstances must always be borne in mind. That is why I am so very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has advanced the type of arguments which he himself knows cannot hold water.

Moreover, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further and blamed the Government for now using the decision given at the referendum and interpreting it to suit itself. One of the arguments he advanced, and which was so often used before 5 October and thereafter, is that this Government has totally deviated from the principle of the broad basis of the will of the people, and because we departed from it we are now committing a terrible sin. When the Opposition speaks about the broad basis of the will of the people they are very fond of quoting the late Dr. Malan as to what the broad basis of the will of the people means. Now I would like to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the referendum was won by the republicans by a majority of far more than 70,000—almost 75,000. And for his information I would just like to quote what the statement of the Nationalist Party was, as stated by the late Dr. Malan, in regard to the broad will of the people. The late Dr. Malan conveyed the decision of the Federal Council in 1941 to the party congress, and this is what he said—

For this reason I would like you to regard the resolutions to be submitted to you to-day as my personal conviction and statement of policy. The statement by the Federal Council, which was previously drafted by me personally, embodies the policy for the future laid down in a speech made by me at Stellenbosch earlier. … In relation to the points for discussion referred to it in regard to the broad basis of the will of the people as a prerequisite for the establishment of a republic, the Federal Council is of opinion that it is first necessary to remove certain misconceptions, and that when that is done it will be evident that no change in the existing formulation of the programme of principles is required. The section concerned does not refer to the broad basis of the will of the people, as some people consistently misquote it. If that were so, it would create the impression that we cannot have a republic unless all sections of the population agree to it. What, however, it actually conveys is the broad basis of the will of the people. That means nothing more than that there should be a safe majority of the enfranchised White voters in favour of a republic.

Then Dr. Malan continues—

Nor does the section affect the right of the people to determine its own lot in any direction by means of any majority.

I think that if we have regard to this it is sufficient to dispose of this argument that there is not a big enough majority, this argument that we are deviating from the principles of the past because, with this tremendous majority of almost 75,000, we now introduce legislation to give expression to the will of the people as expressed on 5 October.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition further complained that in this legislation we are not taking into consideration the points of view of the anti-republicans. He said, further, that not only English-speaking people but also one-third of the Afrikaans-speaking people voted against the republic, and what about their views? I do not want to argue with the Leader of the Opposition as to how many Afrikaans-speaking and how many English-speaking people voted against or for the republic. Personally, I am no longer prepared to divide my people into two camps. As far as I am concerned, the people of South Africa voted on the question of a republic, and whether they are Afrikaans-or English-speaking does not concern me. The people of South Africa voted in favour of a republic and decided on democratic principles that South Africa should become a republic. In addition, the people knew precisely on what principle they were deciding, what the republic would be like, and what the possible complications could be in regard to membership of the Commonwealth. Taking all this into consideration, the people decided by a majority of 75,000, and in order to act democratically after that decision, we have no choice at all but must give effect to the will of the people as expressed.

Mr. Speaker, finally I just want to say this, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said he hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would also tell the world that South Africa would like to remain a member of the Commonwealth, and that he would also explain it to the world. I really do not know where the Leader of the Opposition was during the past year; nor do I know where he was this afternoon whilst the Prime Minister was speaking, because the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly said that South Africa would like to remain a member of the Commonwealth if possible. But this afternoon, on this the highest platform in the country, the hon. the Prime Minister again announced to the world that we very much want to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I therefore do not understand at all how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could make such a remark.

I said in the beginning that there was the question of values and that we should see what the highest values are, and that we have decided, and that the republicans feel, that it is of primary importance that South Africa should become a republic. I also said that I would come back later to some of these reasons. I want to do so now and I want to tell you, Sir, that where we differ from each other on this important matter, as members of the same nation and as members of different parties and as persons with different points of view, we have the right to differ from each other. That is our right as democrats in this country. But when dealing with something which is of such vital interest to our nation and its continued existence we do not have the right to attack one another in a flood of fury or excitement, nor have we the right to ascribe all kinds of motives to one another. Then we should in this struggle put standpoint against standpoint in a calm and moderate manner. We owe that to one another and we also owe it to those who will follow. But not only should we be very serious; we should also be very honest, not only with each other but with ourselves. And when we debate this matter we must do so in a serious spirit, but in a spirit of absolute honesty towards ourselves, each other and our consciences.

Mr. Speaker, we must realize that to-day we are living in a world—it is a fact—which unfortunately does not understand the problems and circumstances of South Africa, and because it does not understand our particular conditions and problems it has not the necessary sympathy for us which it ought to have and which we would like it to have. In view of the fact that we live in these conditions, and that here and there are people who support us, it becomes of paramount importance, in view of world conditions, that we as Whites should find each other and in spite of political differences at least form a tightly knit national unit. For 60 years attempts have been made by the greatest men of our nation under the monarchial system to achieve national unity. Mr. Speaker, did they succeed?

*An HON. MEMBER:

They failed.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (JNR.):

I regret to say that they failed lamentably. I level no accusation. I am not saying whose fault it was that it was a failure. I am merely stating the fact that it was a failure, that every time it seemed that the attempt would work, every time when the test came it resulted in failure. Why did that happen? It happened because it is quite impossible under a monarchy with all the inherent nationally disruptive elements which accompany it to build up national unity in South Africa, for the simple reason—and I have said that in these serious times it is high time that we should be honest with each other and with ourselves —that under this monarchial system both Afrikaansand English-speaking people suffer from certain complexes which keep us apart. The Afrikaans-speaking section, just as the English-speaking section, would rather die before publicly admitting that they suffer from those complexes. But seeing that it has become high time that we should be honest with each other for the sake of our own continued existence and for the sake of national unity, it is necessary to say these things.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What are the complexes from which they suffer?

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (JNR.):

Just give me a chance and I will come to it. The complex from which the Afrikaans-speaking people suffer, and although they do not want to suffer from it they cannot help themselves because it rushes up from the depths of their subconscious mind, is that they to a large extent continue to feel that they are the conquered people in the country of the conqueror. I do not say it is right to feel like that. I am not discussing that. The fact simply remains that he suffers from that complex, rightly or wrongly. The result is that he is continually suspicious of his English-speaking fellow South African. The English-speaking people, on the other hand, also suffer from certain complexes. They have, e.g., a love for the Monarch which, in spite of all the respect and goodwill, cannot be expected from the Afrikaans-speaking people, as the hon. the Prime Minister very clearly stated. But through their bond of affection for the Monarch or the Head of State, who is not a citizen of this fatherland of ours, but of a country overseas, of the country of origin of most of the English-speaking people, the English-speaking people also have a very close bond of affection binding them to their country of origin. Therefore there is a continual conflict in the mind of the English-speaking person between loyalty to his fatherland and loyalty to his motherland which he also has. That clash in his subconscious mind is the reason why he in turn views his Afrikaans-speaking fellow South African continually with suspicion. Unfortunately I must add that it is not only those conflicting complexes that bring him to regard with suspicion his fellow countryman, but unfortunately there are also some Whites here who, for their own advantage, in some way or another, or for political advantage, see fit to frighten the English-speaking people in South Africa and to incite their feelings by telling them that the people on this side of the House will interfere with their language and cultural rights. It is a pity that we have that type of person in our own ranks. But as soon as that last bond which is the cause of these complexes is removed, we will have paved the way towards eventually removing these complexes on the part of both Afrikaansand English-speaking people, and then we would have prepared the ground for the real national unity we all so keenly desire and which we cannot do without.

But, Sir, when I state these propositions and express the opinion that the severing of the bonds of the Monarchy or the Crown will prepare the ground for closer national unity, that is not wishful thinking, for the simple reason that I say so after having studied the lessons taught me by the history of my people. Surely this step we are taking this afternoon is not the first step we have taken in the constitutional direction. In fact, the whole of our history teems with constitutional steps. Because we are a dynamic and growing nation, changes in our constitution are made. So we had one step after another. When those steps were taken our nations originally were so widely separated from each other that one could hardly refer to it as a nation, and we continually had differences. I mention these things not to ventilate old grievances, but simply to prove the proposition that the removal of those bonds must lead to national unity. Sir, there was a time when a prominent son of our nation and a member of the Cabinet was kicked out of the Cabinet because he dared to talk about “South Africa first ”. I am referring to General Hertzog. But times have changed to such an extent that on both sides of the House there is to-day not a single member, nor a solitary person outside Parliament, who will admit to-day that he does not stand for “South Africa first ”. He may not feel it in his heart, but he will never allow it to show. Mr. Speaker, so we had one constitutional step after another, accompanied by bitter strife. I am reminded, e.g., of the Citizenship Act. When the Citizenship Act was passed, as another progressive step on the path of constitutional development, to make you and me citizens of South Africa alone, there was again tremendous dissatisfaction in the country. To-day there is hardly anybody who is not proud to be a citizen of South Africa. In that way we made progress. We had the first Flag Act in 1927-8. Feelings between the two sections were so bitter in those days that we were on the verge of rebellion. Nothing else happened then than merely the provision of a flag which could fly as the flag of the Union together with the Union Jack. Then, as a result of the severing of the various bonds, in the course of time we grew nearer to each other when the second Flag Act was passed a few years ago, which put the Union Flag there as the only flag of South Africa, and there was no talk of rebellion. On the contrary, although some hon. members did their utmost to organize a mass meeting of protest against it, not even in the most English-speaking province of Natal could they organize a decent meeting of protest.

*The MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

The march failed.

*Mr. J. J. FOUCHÉ (JNR.):

Yes, the march failed. That proved to us that it could not be said that in the course of time we would not grow increasingly nearer to each other if this bond was severed, because it takes the dividing elements out of our national life, and because it removes these complexes which create suspicion in the minds of both English-and Afrikaans-speaking people.

Mr. Speaker, there are further reasons why we should have a republic and why we regard it as being in the primary interest of South Africa. The reason is simply that we should view this matter in the light of what is happening in Africa. In Africa the one non-White state after the other is gaining its independence. Why are they becoming independent? Because they are gradually busy shaking off the yoke of the old White colonial powers, the old Western colonial powers. In other words, the non-Whites are gradually getting rid of Western Imperialism on the Continent of Africa. But as they get rid of the old Western Imperialism, a vacuum does not accordingly arise in Africa, for a new imperialism is in the process of coming from the East. At this stage the non-White states of Africa regard the new incoming imperialists as their friends and consider that these people, with their ideologies and the spirit which they introduce, are entering the scene purely from an altruistic love for them, to help them to get rid of the White man in Africa. But, Sir, before very long they will begin to realize that this new foreign imperialism is not altruistic but egoistic, because in the first instance they are looking for living space for themselves and want to off-load their surplus populations in Africa. And in the second instance because they want the riches of Africa. It is when they begin to feel this grip on their throats, as non-White states in Africa, that they will realize that they now need assistance from somebody. That assistance can only come from the White Western powers. But they are the people who themselves drove the White Western powers out of Africa, or tried to do so. How can they now in all decency or honesty go and ask those powers for assistance? That is where we come into the picture. As long as the Union of South Africa is a monarchy, so long will we in the eyes of the non-White masses of Africa—the ignorant Black masses—be a member of a Western European nation, because our great chief, as they regard her, our real Head of State, the Monarch, is not a citizen of this country, nor a citizen of a country in Africa, but a citizen of one of the Western European countries— those people who in their opinion should not be here and should get out. Therefore they regard us as being part of Western Europe and in their view we are not entitled to be here; we are intruders and therefore we should get out. But the moment our Head of State, our great chief, is a citizen of South Africa and therefore a citizen of the continent of Africa, the knowledge will begin to take root in their minds that these people at this southern tip of Africa do not form part of Western Europe, but of Africa. They are, to put it that way, White Africans. Then they will realize that these people here have no other home to which to go. These people will live or die in the southern part of Africa. Mr. Speaker, if the realization begins to take root in their minds that the White nation at the southern point of Africa is part of Africa, at the stage when they begin to feel the grip of the new incoming imperialism at their throats, they will also begin to realize: But there we have our link with the White Western powers. This small number of Whites in Southern Africa are the people through whom we should work. And then their whole attitude towards the White people of South Africa will change. Therefore I feel that this is one of the most important reasons why we should become a republic. I believe that there are many other things to which we should attach value, many other things which will be of immense benefit to our nation and which we would like to have. But it is of no avail trying to achieve good things for our nation if we allow our nation to be destroyed. And we believe in our hearts that if we can obtain White unity—and we believe we can really get it only under a republic, for the reasons I have advanced—if we want to play the role in Africa which we should play as a White nation in the southern part of Africa, then we can do so only if we become a republic. In other words, we really believe in our hearts that we can only continue to exist as a nation under the republican system, from the very nature of these various circumstances. And for that reason, because in the first instance one should build a nation in order to achieve these splendid things, and because one can only do it in a republic, in this southern part of Africa, we say that a republic is of primary importance for our nation. When once we have become a republic we can look further, then we can see what will be best for our nation in those circumstances. After having become a republic, we believe that it will be best for us to remain a member of the Commonwealth. For that reason we shall do our utmost to remain a member of the Commonwealth. Although it has been repeatedly stated here and outside that in the economic sphere and many other spheres it is of importance for us to remain a member of the Commonwealth, I want to state very clearly that the importance of our membership of the Commonwealth should definitely not be over-estimated, and that the most important reason why we wish to remain a member of the Commonwealth is, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated, because in that way we seek to satisfy the sentiments of that section of our people who attach great value to membership of the Commonwealth.

My time has almost expired, Sir, and I do not want to touch on any further points. I just want to round off this point. Those people who are interested in South Africa remaining a member of the Commonwealth have no choice. They must ensure that we become a republic now, for the simple reason which has been clearly stated, viz. that this question as to whether South Africa will be allowed to remain a member or not can only be put after we have decided to become a republic. Let us understand this very clearly. In any case, South Africa will become a republic, because everybody in the country will admit that the republic is inevitable. The late General Smuts himself said that the eventual arrival of a republic could not be stopped. A republic will come as surely as day follows night. Now it is a question of when it will come, now or later. Remember, Sir, that we are not applying to become a member of the Commonwealth: we are applying to remain a member because at present we are a member. One can only apply to remain a member if one is a member. Otherwise one must apply to become a member. That is not what we are doing. At no stage do we cease to become a member of the Commonwealth. If we now apply to remain a member and that is refused, it means in effect that a member of the Commonwealth is being kicked out. And, Sir, in terms of the principle of unanimity, they must then unanimously say either that we can or cannot remain a member. We should, however, remember that we are dealing with people. Even supposing they abandon their old practice and proceed to decide that matter by means of a majority decision, then we are still covered by the fact that, as the Commonwealth is at present constituted, they will not get a majority to agree to kicking us out. But, in the meantime, one state after another is becoming independent and applying for membership of the Commonwealth. We have no guarantee that, if we do not become a republic now and put that question now, but eventually one day become a republic and put the question then after all these new states have become members of the Commonwealth —I say we have no guarantee that if then the principle of unanimity is abandoned, we will then be covered and protected by the principle of a majority decision. Therefore, we should ensure that we become a republic now.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I would like to congratulate the Government heartily on this important legislation before the House, to which I give my full support, and in this connection I pray that it will enure to the benefit of the best interests of one great, united and unanimous White nation in South Africa.

Major VAN DER BYL:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said we would remain a member of the Commonwealth even after becoming a republic. I suggest he is wrong. When we change our status we automatically cease to be a member and have to ask for re-admission. For him to go round and suggest that it would be the Commonwealth kicking us out. instead of us not being re-elected, is not true. The Prime Minister was anxious that we should remain in the Commonwealth, but he said the republic should come first. I will argue during the course of my speech why this Bill should be delayed until we have a more favourable climate. I will make the point that this Bill should not be rushed at this particular moment. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) made it clear that the republic will come regardless of what the loss might be to South Africa’s interests. Well, Sir, there we differ. We on this side say the interests of South Africa must come first, and not the pandering to the feelings of a certain section of the community. The Prime Minister said that no safeguard would protect minority groups and that the Bantu would overcome or discard any such safeguards, and to a large extent I must agree with him, because the Bantu has been set an example of how to bypass entrenchments, and break solemn undertakings, by such means as enlarging the Senate for instance. To many of the arguments used by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Smithfield I shall reply in the course of my speech, and so I will not deal with them now.

That lover of clichés, the hon. the Minister of Finance, started a speech the other day with one that has whiskers down its hocks. He said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Sir, the gods must have been extremely anxious to destroy the galaxy of mediocrity which I see opposite me now, for after a week of meetings the gods have turned their whole caucus apparently into a bedlam by allowing the Prime Minister to introduce this Bill at this particular time before he goes to the London Conference. Everybody except the Prime Minister, and a handful of faithfuls, not only realizes but is prepared to admit, as the Prime Minister did this afternoon, that our standing in the eyes of the world has, from a gradual deterioration over the years, increased in velocity to that of a falling stone, so that to-day we stand naked and almost isolated in a dangerous and hostile world. But even the Burger’s “Muishond” at that time had a coat of hair to temper the wind of change to the shorn lamb. To-day we do not even have that protection. All that remains over South Africa is the odour. The position has deteriorated since 5 October, and that is the important point. Surely now is not the time to step off the solid ground of our Commonwealth relationship on to the quicksands of uncertainty, should we declare a republic before we know where we stand vis-à-vis the Commonwealth. We are told that only a unanimous vote can put us out, but once we have to reapply for admission— and that is where I disagree with the hon. member for Smithfield—we place ourselves in the hands of the black-bailers; and that is the danger. The Government have got their so-called mandate. We admit that, but surely there is no hurry to put it into operation, with this Bill, until we know where we stand with regard to our membership of the Commonwealth? For Heaven’s sake, let the Prime Minister first test the climate at the London Conference in March. There is no time limit. He has his mandate. It does not mean that if he does not exercise it at once, it is nullified. Let him drop this Bill and test the ground first. That is what my leader put forward in his amendment.

The Prime Minister admitted that he had no assurance of any kind that we would be able to remain in the Commonwealth if we become a republic. He has not only admitted the utmost importance of our remaining in it, but more important, his specially selected referendum speakers (from which apparently the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was warned off) gave a clear understanding throughout the whole of that campaign that remaining in the club was merely a formality—the Minister of Finance was one, and I think he made that statement at Stellenbosch. Many thousands were misled by those speeches and were persuaded thereby to vote for the republic. That great sales-talk of the referendum, before 5 October, was only equalled by the sob-story of unity. Ministers wept with ecstasy as they pressed the English-speaking people to their tearstained bosoms. In fact, they were almost in danger of getting corns on their chests from the pressure. But never a word of it has been heard since then. In fact the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) bluntly said last week that unity means a change of heart and a change of heart be damned. That is the outlook now, after all we heard about unity, which made many English-speaking people vote for the republic. But what happened was that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs immediately after that made one of the most racialistic speeches ever made in this country. The promise of unity so affected people like Mr. Boydell that he was quite hysterical for this new-found love and ran out of tears and almost out of ink at one time during the referendum. But even that self-appointed roving ambassador is now turning sour. Whether the deplorable speech of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made this change, or whether it was something to do with the Senate elections, is anybody’s guess.

But to get back to the introduction of this Bill. At this moment, in times of great uncertainty, to risk losing the sheet-anchor of our friendship and safety which is the Commonwealth by forcing through the republic hurriedly, as if we were rushing to take up an option before the date line lapsed, to me is just sheer madness. Many people have forgotten already what South Africa stands to lose if we cease to be a member of the Commonwealth. Let me therefore give the House a brief summary of what this country stands to lose materially (apart from friends and safety) should we be deprived of our preferences. That is where I disagree with the hon. member for Smithfield. If we cease to be a member of the Commonwealth and lose these preferences, South Africa will be in a very dangerous position. I therefore want to give some details of them, because I think they are of the utmost importance to us. Take the figures for 1958. Of all the grapefruit exported, Britain took 93 per cent. It entered Britain duty-free when others had to pay 5s. duty per cwt. Citrus is worth about £5,500,000 to us, and more than half of it was sold to the U.K. South Africa paid no duty. All other non-Commonwealth countries, such as Spain, Brazil and the Middle East and the U.S.A., pay 3s. 6d. per cwt. If this preference were removed, the Union growers would lose about £500,000. Brazil, like us, is in the Southern Hemisphere. Their citrus comes on the market at the same time as ours: between May and November (i.e. the summer of the Northern Hemisphere). Europe and the U.S.A. market their citrus from November to May. Now Brazil is a very big consumer of U.K exports—machinery, implements and textiles, etc. Is the U.K. going to risk offending a big customer like that by giving preferences to us if we are outside the Commonwealth? They will demand that Brazil and South Africa be treated alike. Take grapes. Eighty per cent of our exports went to the U.K. in 1958. Should we cease to be a member of the Commonwealth the growers will lose 11 per cent preference, equal to something like 14s. per cwt. Forty-four per cent of our export maize (valued at £7,500,000) was sold to Britain, with a 10 per cent preference. The annual output of sugar is something like £40,000,000 worth, earning £7,500,000 in foreign exchange. We have to sell one-third; and the bulk of that goes to Britain, at a preference of £3 15s. a ton, but that is not all.

To help the Commonwealth producers, the Commonwealth Agreement sets a global quota to the Commonwealth producers, who share it out amongst themselves. Each member sells part of its export to the U.K. at a specially agreed price, which is much higher than the price it would fetch on the open market. The price on the world market is less than £30 per ton. The price on the local market is £26 10s. The price fixed in the U.K. was £44 8s. 10d. This would mean a much lower export price and lower export earnings should we lose our preferences: It will mean a much higher domestic price, because, unlike all other exports, where we have to charge a higher price internally to make up for the lower price overseas, in the case of sugar we get a much higher price overseas which: makes it possible for the local consumer to get it cheaper. With regard to the wine industry. Thirty per cent of our exports go to the U.K. at a preference of 10s. per gallon. Now take canned goods: Eighty-eight per cent is sold in the U.K. at a 12 per cent preference. It has been worked out by experts that if we lose that preference producers will have to reduce the prices here by 10 per cent to compete against the rest of the Commonwealth and the world. This would mean, at the present production prices, a loss of £1,250,000 to the industry, and £12 a ton to the producer of fruit. What makes the position worse is that many of our competitors have a very big inland market. For instance the U.S.A. has an internal market which absorbs 90 per cent of her total production. She only has to export 10 per cent, so she could give it away almost without great loss. With us the position is just the reverse. We only consume 10 per cent and export 90 per cent, and of that Britain takes 88 per cent, leaving only 2 per cent to be exported to other countries. Then we come to a very important industry: apples and pears exported into Britain are at present limited by a quota, except those from Commonwealth countries. If we lose our preference our export to the U.K. will be limited by a quota like any other non-member of the Commonwealth. New Zealand and Australia will be able to sell their products first and only if they cannot supply all that is required will we be allowed to come into the market in competition with the rest of the world, and it is possible that we might be excluded entirely. Our greatest competitor, the Argentine, produces 20,000,000 cases a year, and yet they are only allowed to sell on the British market £650,000 worth or 3 per cent of their production; because of the Commonwealth quota, and have to pay 4s. 6d. per cwt. on that 3 per cent. Canada is part of the dollar area. It is interesting to know that Nova Scotia, whose natural market would be Britain for her apples, has been ruined. In the last ten years 1,250,000 trees have been uprooted. Without access to the British market, our apple industry might suffer the same fate as Nova Scotia. If the primary producer is hit, every single trade and profession is also hit, because there is less money in circulation.

The wholesale and retail trade is hit and they must sack employees, who in turn have no purchasing power, and so it goes on like a chain reaction. If the primary producer is poor, he cannot even afford to have a court case, and that will affect the lawyers opposite. His wife and children have a lower purchasing power and that affects everybody. Much of the retail trade sells imported goods, which cannot be imported unless we earn the foreign currency to pay for them. A lot of very skilled assistants are needed to sell those retail luxury goods across the counter, and if we do not have the foreign exchange—and it is going down every day—we cannot pay for our imports and then those people will have to be dismissed. The primary producer is the main foreign currency earner, and if he cannot sell his products abroad our foreign reserves drop. Without foreign currency South Africa cannot buy and import the foreign goods we require, and all the people who handle the goods will be out of work. If we become a republic and cease to be a member of the Commonwealth and we cease to enjoy the preferences, producers will be in a very dangerous financial position.

I am not disputing the fact that we lost the referendum. It is obviously true that the enfranchised Whites of South Africa gave the republicans a majority. Nor do I at this stage want to use a very valid argument, viz. that all the enfranchised citizens were not consulted, although that argument can be used. Obviously the Coloureds are enfranchised citizens, or else how can they have four members of Parliament sitting here, members who will take part in this debate who can vote on the Bill? Yet they have no mandate from their people because they were not consulted in the referendum. So obviously, even the enfranchised people of South Africa were not all consulted. That is the position, but let that go for the moment because it is not germane to my argument. What I want to stress is that there is no hurry to force this change through now. Therefore why is the Prime Minister not prepared to delay this irrevocable step until he has attended the London Conference and found out what our position is vis-à-vis the rest of the members of the Commonwealth? I have already dealt with our dire isolation in the world to-day, particularly at UN, and I have tried to show what we stand to lose materially if we lose our preferences. But as regards UN we can still take our stand on (what is now in reality merely a technical objection) Clause 2 (7) of the Charter, and say that they have no right to interfere with our internal affairs. But since 5 October a much greater menace has come to a head, and one in regard to which we cannot shield behind Clause 2 (7). I refer to the South West mandate, which may create a very dangerous situation for us, especially if the International Court finds against us. It is true that we needed friends before, but we could take a stand on moral grounds on Clause 2 (7); but with the mandate issue the position is different; and if South Africa ever stood in dire need of friends it is now. The only friends we are likely to get at UNO are the older members of the Commonwealth. We could expect them to stand up for us not only for the sake of friendship but for sentimental reasons also, because they will remember how South Africa, by her action in conquering what was then German South West, played a most important role in allied sea strategy when we eliminated the biggest wireless station south of the Equator at Windhoek. That act broke the one link between the German Admiralty in Berlin and the whole of the German Fleet in the Southern Hemisphere under Admiral Von Spee. The older Commonwealth members will remember what it meant to the Allied cause in general, and therefore they may well stand by us in the dangerous situation which faces us over South West. They will remember that we went in and took South West at a time when it was of the utmost importance to Allied strategy to do so. They will remember that most of the disasters that befell the British Fleet were due to the orders and the information which came from the German Admiralty via Windhoek to Admiral Von Spee, and the great sinking of ships that took place in the Southern Hemisphere. They will also no doubt recall how our Government had to withstand the ruthless onslaughts of the then Nationalist Opposition. They tried to make people’s blood run cold by suggesting that young Afrikaner blood would seep into the sands, and that their bones would bleach in the desert; but that party now has the nerve to accuse us of not being patriotic because we criticize them. But at that period they actually stabbed that Government in the back in time of war. (Interjections.] But it is interesting to remember that the Nationalist Party which so attacked us for taking South West then, are now so keen to keep the spoils. The Commonwealth will remember that 50,000 Boers led by Boer generals like Botha, Smuts, Brits, Myburgh, Alberts and a whole lot of others—men who had fought against the Empire only twelve short years before—were responsible for the first Allied victory in a series of defeats in other spheres. That is a memory that might well remain with the older members of the Commonwealth, and cause them to help us when the South West issue comes to a head, as it will. At this critical period the Government is prepared to go out of its way to cut the one bond that still ensures our membership of the Commonwealth. Whilst we are not a republic they cannot put us out of the Commonwealth. The cliché I opened with is interesting. It is that whom the gods want to destroy they first make mad. Sir, I would like to substitute the word “stupid” for “mad ”, because a madman can very often be clever. Some philosophers see an affiliation between madness and genius, but with a fool nothing can be done. Give me a crook, any day, rather than a fool, because you at least at times guess what he will do; but you can never anticipate what a fool will do. He is the type who Trumps his partners ace at Bridge. What has disappointed me so greatly is to see the stupidity of this Government, going in the face of world opinion and obstinately continuing their stupid policies. Sir, you will remember Disraeli’s remark about stupidity. He said that assaults and brutalities you can combat; the wiles of diplomacy you can counter-argue, the cunning of duplicity you can defeat, but there is one force which no human agency can cope with, the unconscious machinations of stupidity. It is the stupidity of this Government which worries me. A few days ago a large number of thinking Nationalists were putting the welfare of their country above party interests.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was interrupted I was dealing with the foolishness of pushing this Bill through now. The Prime Minister has got the mandate and there is no hurry to implement it. He should first ascertain what the climate is at the important forthcoming Prime Ministers’ conference. I have only a few minutes at my disposal and so I should like to go on with the rest of my speech.

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

Haw-haw.

Major VAN DER BYL:

I wish the honourable gentleman would not always refer to his female associates when I am speaking.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, patriotic and thinking Nationalists who put the welfare of their country above the interests of their party, were showing their disquiet at the way in which the Prime Minister was running (or should say “ruining ”)—the country. They expressed their fear and their distrust of the way things were shaping. Suddenly the Prime Minister decided that this type of thinking criticism had to stop; and the order went forth. We saw a reaction similar to that when a headmaster walks into a preparatory school class room where the children are slightly boisterous: a terrified silence descends on all; a silence that can almost be felt. The order went forth to shut up, to shut their mouths or else! All the mouths were clamped down with vehemence that must have jeopardized some of the fillings in their teeth. Mr. Speaker, to me it has been the most tragic experience. In fact it has embarrassed me just as it would embarrass me to see even an enemy make a faux pas or gaff in public and be humiliated. This has caused me to feel sad and despondent. I started to wonder what has happened to those great independently-minded, moral fearless and courageous Afrikaners who up to 12 or 13 years ago, would not only have brushed aside with contempt any order to “shut up ”, but would have taken it as a challenge to do the very opposite and damn the consequences. When I look at my friends opposite, when I recollect some of the great names that a number of them bear—names such as Botha (whether spelt with one or two o’s), Strydom, du Plessis, de Wet, Coetzee, Sauer, etc.—names famous in the history of South Africa for their courage and independence of thought in the past, and I see their present namesakes, reduced to awestruck silence at the crack of the “karwats”, then my heart becomes sad. [Laughter.] That is very hysterical hollow laughter, Sir. But they know it is true and that they dare not open their mouths. If I were an emotional man, my heart would be filled with tears for them. I feel that if their illustrious forebears, whose name they bear, could see the craven obedience to the “big brother with the direct line ”, they would gyrate in their graves. Look at them. [Interjections.] There they sit; extinct volcanoes without the eruptive force even to blow their hats off; without the moral strength to pull a hen of her nest. And I say to those hon. gentlemen opposite in all seriousness: You know you are all worried about the position in South Africa to-day; you realize the dangerous waters that the ship of state is sailing into now. You yourself can see the rocks ahead: I beg of you to stand up and fight; show guts not servile obedience. Your ancestors were prepared to risk their lives for South Africa; aren’t you prepared to risk your political careers for your country? All that there is to relieve this tragic situation is to view their counterparts, the South Africans, on this side of the House, English-speaking, whose forebears some 150 years ago had helped to build up South Africa and the Afrikaans-speaking. We have members with English and Afrikaans names on this side of the House who will fight on whatever the cost is. I refer to the Graaffs, the Cronjes, the Mitchells, the Steyns, the Malans, the de Kocks, the Bowkers, the Smits, van Niekerks …

An HON. MEMBER:

The van der Byls.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

No, Mr. Speaker, I make no claim for my family. I am a retiring, modest, self-effacing man—aggressive, shy and timid person. I make no claim that my name should be included in that illustrious list. Eventually their independence of thought and their fearless courage will save South Africa. In a time of crisis a merciful Providence has on every single occasion given South Africa a man to save us—Botha, Hertzog, Smuts. We have that man now, a man who has dedicated his life to South Africa. When the call comes —as has happened in every single crisis in the past—it was the United Party who saved the country and it will save the country again under our going leader. Once again when the call comes we shall not fail to answer it and South Africa once more will be on a safe course to prosperity, unity and have powerful friends who will stand by us when the storm clouds blow up.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to quarrel with my hon. friend opposite. He had such a great deal to say about the things that would be lost to us; that story is as old as the mountains of the Cape. When the hon. member was trying so desperately to find something against the republic, he reminded me of a bad farmer who tries every morning to plough the most arid portions of his land and when the plough skims along the surface of the soil, he merely says: “I shall try again”. The republicans on the other hand wait until it has rained and then they plough properly. I do not want to reply to the speech of the hon. member, I want to confine myself in general to the behaviour of the United Party throughout this process of our becoming a republic, their behaviour right from the beginning. I find it difficult to understand how there can still be hon. members opposite who make the type of speech which we have had here to-day. Those speeches were made months ago; those speeches were made before the referendum; those speeches were made before the date was determined; those speeches were made merely to frighten the whole of South Africa and to make the world outside disgusted with us. Let us see how it all started, Sir. When the hon. the Prime Minister introduced the Bill which provided for the referendum, the Opposition went to the world and to South Africa, and wherever they went—the Black spots, the blue spots and the yellow spots—they tried to make us suspect. They said that Dr. Verwoerd and his extremist followers on this side did not wish to remain within the Commonwealth; they did not want the Commonwealth. They said that, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister had said that before he asked the public to vote on the question of a republic he would tell them whether it would be on the question of whether the republic would be within the Commonwealth or not. But that fell on deaf ears. Merely because they believed that we wanted to be outside the Commonwealth— remember those are the people who seek unity, to which I shall refer later in my speech— they accepted that that would be the position. Those are the people who said we did not want the Commonwealth. And after the hon. the Prime Minister had determined the date and said we were going to have a referendum on the question of a republic within the Commonwealth those hon. gentlemen immediately jumped up, the Leader of the Opposition included, and said: “Now the Commonwealth does not want us”. I want to put this very clearly: Firstly, we did not want the Commonwealth but when we said that we should like to remain within it, the Commonwealth did not want us, according to them. I have never seen such vacillation in my whole life, Sir, and they vacillated like that because they could not advance anything against the republic as such. Then they had to find something else. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, those gentlemen opposite are grown-up people, people who represent the electorate of this country, and as such one would not have expected them to grasp at such small things in order to strengthen their case. What did they do then? Then those hon. gentlemen thought of another plan, an old plan which has been used against the Afrikaner before; he is either a racialist, or he is a rebel, or he is similar to the hon. the Prime Minister as represented by them. When they could not find anything against the republic they tried to make a monster out of the hon. the Prime Minister; they started to accuse him of being a merciless torturer, a person who did not listen to anybody, a real monster from which everyone ought to recoil. It is peculiar, however, Sir, that hon. members of the Opposition could not even persuade all their own supporters to recoil, how much less could they persuade our people to recoil. Having put the hon. the Prime Minister through the mill to such an extent that one had to feel sorry for him—to think that one civilized person can belittle another civilized person like that in the eyes of his own people and in the eyes of the world outside—having reached that stage, they attached the republic to that monster. They wanted to show the world what kind of a republic his would be, the republic of that monster, that despicable being, that heartless being, because that was how they represented the hon. the Prime Minister to the world outside. That was how they represented the republic to the electorate. Then they went through the country displaying placards and making speeches: Do not accept a Verwoerd republic. In other words, there was nothing wrong with the republic. Right from the outset nothing was said against the republic, but they kept on hammering at the Government and at the Leader of the Government. If there is anything more petty than that I would like to hear of it. If there is anything more petty than that, anything more petty which a mature party can use to put its case to the world, I should like to hear of it.

Mr. Speaker, those placards were sent into the world and when they found that they did not achieve anything by besmirching Dr. Verwoerd, they embarked upon their most petty plan of all—those placards: “Do not be a yes-man; vote no.” When we think of that, Sir, and think that that came from the benches opposite, you cannot blame us if our respect for them sinks so fast, that we have to use a shovel to scoop it up again. “Do not be a yes-man: vote no.” What is a “yes-man” in the eyes of the Afrikaner? A yes-man is the type of person with whom you cannot do a thing; his word does not mean a thing; his undertakings come to nought; he himself is worthless; he is a “yes-man ”.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

In other words, a good Nationalist.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

That hon. member has now given judgement against himself and I am grateful for that. Not only is he an evil spirit, but a good United Party supporter to boot.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. BOOTHA:

I withdraw that, Sir. Bui the hon. member should not start with his stupidities; he should take his medicine when it is administered to him. We say that that is the most despicable weapon that can be employed in order to state your case and to win it. When that happened I was more convinced than ever before that unassailable facts were the weapons of a wise man, but to make unpleasant and insinuating remarks and humiliating accusations, accusations which cannot be proved, are the weapons of a man who lacks facts as well as the weapons of the man who lacks wisdom, because a wise man would not go to the country with the petty accusations with which hon. members opposite have gone. Those were the accusations which they levelled against us when everything else had failed, those were the plans they resorted to because there was nothing left for them to do. We have heard nothing this evening, we heard nothing to-day, there has been no proof, that there is anything wrong with the republic. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day that what was wrong with it was that the people who wanted a republic, the Government who wanted a republic, were not right, and that is the gentleman who in the same breath talks about unity in South Africa. It is the same gentleman who said we should strive for unity in South Africa and who said that the National Party did not have the heart for unity. Another hon. member said that unless there was a change of heart on this side of the House there would never be unity. It is remarkable, Sir, that anyone can harden his own heart and do the things which I have mentioned, can level those insults and make those false accusations, and then have the courage to say “You should undergo a change of heart before we will believe in you ”. Is this side of the House the only side that is hard? I can say this, Mr. Speaker, that during the past years we have revealed that change of heart; I think that over the past years the Afrikaner has clearly proved that he wanted to make concessions to that side of the House, that he has made concessions, and for that reason I cannot do otherwise but despise the methods which were employed, the methods which were employed to fight this republic and the methods which are being employed at the present moment, to judge by the speeches which we are having here. The whole position appears hopeless to me. You would think that having entered the ring to fight, Sir, and you are counted out, you will at least observe the ruling of the referee, throw in the towel, and admit that you have been beaten. The fight which we have at the moment, Mr. Speaker, started even before the referendum and hon. members of the Opposition received a knockout blow; in spite of those methods of theirs, in spite of all their petty methods they have come to a fall and now that the referee, the people of South Africa, have counted them out, they return to continue the fight on the same issue. I can only put it this way, Sir: I have seen many of these cases—it has happened to me too—that when you receive a very hard blow on the chin you are unaware of the fact that you have been counted out. When you regain consciousness you carry on fighting until the referee calls you to order. It seems to me that that is what is happening in this case. With the next general election the referee will have to bring the United Party to their senses because they want to carry on with the fight after they have already been beaten. You know, Mr. Speaker, that if any-body had told me before the referendum that these things would happen, I would not have believed him. I would have thought that having lost that referendum, the United Party would have been prepared to assist in building that republic. We have here some leaders of the electorate outside—and there are many I think, United Party supporters, who do not feel the same way as they do, and you would have expected those United Party leaders, in view of the result of the referendum, to have said: “Look, we are now going to keep the Nationalists at their word; we are going to accept the republic and we are going to help to establish it, so that it may be our republic as well.” Had they done that they would have guided the people of South Africa, those who voted against it, into the republic, and those voters who voted against the republic would consequently not have found themselves in the humiliating position of having to submit to a republic against which they had fought to the very last. They ought to be placed in the position where they can say: This is my own creation; I assisted in building that republic. But now hon. members of the Opposition come and fight to the last ditch. It has become clear to-day that that side of the House will have no love for the republic to come. That is the lead which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has given his followers. He says: We are not going to agree with you. During the first debate which we had in this House on this matter, the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) said: “We do not agree with your republic; ‘of course, we won’t’.” That is a leader of the United Party, a leader who exerted all his energies to organize his people throughout the plains of South Africa to vote against the referendum. Now they come here and remind us that a certain section of the electorate believed that the republic would be within the Commonwealth. That is wonderful proof of the failure on the part of the Opposition, because they went from platform to platform and told the electorate that the republic would not be within the Commonwealth; that the National Party did not want to remain within the Commonwealth. When they had no other ammunition they pretended to the world that we did not want to remain within the Commonwealth. Now the hon. member tells us that there were people who believed that we would indeed remain within the Commonwealth. Can there be a more straight-forward admission, Mr. Speaker, of their defeat, apart from the defeat suffered at the referendum. They put everything they had into that fight, they used all the language that could be used against the republicans, and in spite of that the public voted for a republic. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells us that we should remember that those people believed that. Has he still any claim to those people? Has the Opposition still a claim to those people whom they could not persuade to vote agáinst the republic?

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the arguments which have been used here constitute not only a crime against us who are sitting here, but a crime against the country. I can go further and say it is an atrocious act against the country; if the Opposition continues along those lines it will mean the end of what we could have achieved in this country. Would it have been strange had we developed a hatred in our hearts? We could have developed that hatred had we not been trained to realize that the greatest enemy of a clear brain is hatred. It has been proved to me, Sir, that it is the hatred which we find on the other side of the House that has so blunted the mental ability of the able men who are sitting there, that they quarrel with us the way they are doing to-day. It is hatred which destroys mental ability. That hon. member need not look at me so pointedly; he knows that is true.

Now I should like to deal with a few hon. members who are unfortunately not here. I shall address my remarks to their empty benches and trust that their fellow-members will convey to them what I have to say. When I look at the hon. member for South Coast, I see in him the type of Englishman that we like, that hard steadfast type with a great love for that which is his own. That is a characteristic which we like; that is a characteristic which we can use in future; that is a characteristic which can be transplanted and which can be of value to us. That is a qualification which can be utilized, but unfortunately that same person suffers from a disqualification as well, and that disqualification is this: the greater the love for that which is his own, the more intense his hatred of that other section with whom he has to co-operate.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I say that if we could separate those two characteristics and succeed in getting that steadfast Englishman to love that which is his own as well, namely South Africa, and what goes with it, as much as he loves that which he now maintains is his own, that characteristic can be utilized; then it won’t only be a “change of heart” on this side of the House; it will also be a “change of heart” on the side opposite. That is why we find it so difficult to accept it when hon. members opposite say we do nothing to promote harmony. Let us be honest with each other. Who are the people who continually say that we are not the right people? Have we ever said that we did not have the right people on that side of the House? Have you, Sir, ever heard us say that we cannot work together with hon. members opposite? That has never yet come from this side of the House in my presence. Why should that come from the other side? If that is what we hear from the Opposition, we can only accept that that is the position within their ranks. I am therefore entitled to ask the Opposition this: If your intentions towards South Africa are sincere why do these newspaper reports which besmirch South Africa go into the outside world? Why does that happen? The speech which I am making to-day will never be published abroad. Members may say it is not good enough. That is quite right, because my speech has not got a Black little brother clinging to it. In every speech which we get from the side opposite accusations are levelled against us in so far as the Coloured question is concerned. Their reason for doing that is this: The entire Western world is bidding for the friendship of the Black man in Africa, and now the Opposition wishes to pluck their courage from the Western world; they have now developed a love for the Black man and we are being accused of oppressing the Black man. Mr. Speaker, not a single hon. member opposite has risen and said a word about what this Government has done to uplift the Black man—not a single member. When we refer to the universities which we have established for them the reply comes: You removed them from the White universities.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

I am merely mentioning these things, Mr. Speaker, to show that hon. members opposite do not give us the friendship which they allege they have for us. That is probably why I overstepped the mark; I shall return to the Bill and not default again.

I am justified in asking hon. members opposite that if they are sincere in their intentions towards South Africa; if they are sincere with the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, as we are sincere with hon. members opposite, will they issue a statement on behalf of the Opposition, to the effect that the Opposition is prepared to accept the republic and that they want the hon. the Prime Minister to plead for Commonwealth membership for the republic also on behalf of the United Party. When the opposition does that I will believe that they too have undergone a change of heart.

Mr. HORAK:

Mr. Speaker, after your serious appeal this afternoon to keep this debate on a high level, the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) will forgive me if I do not deal in any great detail with his speech.

I do want to say this, however, Sir, that it is very difficult for anybody to act on terms of friendship with anyone who suspects one’s motives. The hon. member made it very clear in the course of his address that the one thing he does in respect of this side of the House is to suspect our motives. He made that very plain indeed. The hon. member forgets too that in putting the case, which we as an Opposition put in this House in this debate— which is a serious debate as you say, Sir—we speak not only on behalf of ourselves, but we speak on behalf of 775,000 people, people who expressed their view on 5 October very clearly in respect of a certain standpoint. A great deal, of course, has been said, also by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, in regard to the knock-out blow which the anti-republicans received, in regard to the adequate majority which was cast in favour of the republic. Let me say, Sir, that if any hon. member on that side regards 4 per cent as an adequate majority for this far-reaching change, I would recommend seriously that he should think again about it. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) in fact quoted the late Dr. Malan in 1941 and gave us Dr. Malan’s interpretation, in those days, of what he regarded as a majority based on the “bree volkswil ”. Without conceding that the late Dr. Malan was right then, I must point out that he did say that an adequate majority based on the “breë volkswil” did mean a safe majority—“’n veilige meerderheid ”. If a majority in a referendum like this of 4 per cent can be regarded as a safe majority for a step of this magnitude, my interpretation of “safe” in the past has been sadly wrong. Because this simply means that if two voters out of every 100 had voted the other way the result would have been different. I do not regard this as a safe majority.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

What would you regard as a safe majority?

Mr. HORAK:

That is not for me to answer at this stage, but a 4 per cent majority is not a safe majority either in terms of the past dicta of leaders of the Nationalist Party, nor in fact for any reasonable person. In fact, in claiming this as an overwhelming majority, as a knock-out blow, hon. members on the other side are being asked to stretch their own credulity a bit too far. But let me say too, in passing, that we have not challenged the validity of this majority at all. There is a majority. I only contend that it is not an adequate majority.

Dr. DE WET:

What about Kennedy?

Mr. HORAK:

Kennedy’s majority was in the election of a president, not in respect of a change in the constitution of the United States of America. But we here are dealing with a fundamental change in our Constitution, not the election of a president. The hon. member for Bellville (Mr. Haak) who has just been to America, would perhaps know what sort of majority would be required in the United States for a change in the constitution. Certainly not a 4 per cent majority. Mr. Speaker, in passing I want to say also that it is quite clear from the referendum result that the overwhelming majority of the new vote, and I concede this—I am referring to the vote of people who turned 18 since 1959 —was in favour of a republic. Let me admit that. But who are these young people? Of course they are idealistic young people, highly idealistic, but in the nature of things they are unacquainted with the hard and real facts of life, particularly life in this hostile and dangerous world of to-day, and in so many instances (and this is not their fault) they are the end product of an educational system which is calculated to lead to national disunity and strife rather than to national unity. In fact in three out of four provinces they are the product of such an educational system, and in the Transvaal they have since 1945 been subjected to this system.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is now going too far; he should return to the Bill.

Mr. HORAK:

Yes, Sir, I will not continue along those lines. Sir, without reflecting on previous legislation of this House, we indicated at the time that we did not think that the franchise for the eighteen-year olds was a good thing. The referendum issue to a very large extent was decided by that vote, that young, idealistic, and almost in every instance immature vote. There are naturally exceptions, but these young people in these formative years are subject to “Sturm” and “Drang ”, are led more by enthusiasm than by judgement, by an enthusiasm which is very often evinced at public meetings. The hon. the Prime Minister has had some experience of the enthusiasm of these young people, so has the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the House, the hon. the Minister of Lands, and I also in my constituency have had some experience of enthusiasm instead of judgement.

Sir, the amendment proposed by my hon. Leader stresses two matters. The first is the question of our continued membership of the Commonwealth, and the second is the question of some sort of assurance in regard to or guarantee of basic rights in this new constitution of ours, for the sake of greater national unity.

In regard to the Commonwealth issue, there is no question that the vast majority of the electorate voted on the clear understanding, despite the hon. Prime Minister’s speech at Lichtenburg, that a republic would be within the Commonwealth of Nations. Everything, with one exception, said by hon. members on the other side, during the referendum campaign was directed at assuring the electorate that a republic for South Africa would not mean our isolation from the Commonwealth. The hon. the Prime Minister’s “Dear Friend” letter, addressed individually to every voter in this country stressed it. The speeches of people like the hon. the Minister of Finance all over the country pooh-poohed the idea, ridiculed the idea that we could be refused re-admission to the Commonwealth.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Readmission?

Mr. HORAK:

Yes. To quote a lesser authority, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), this is what he said on 15 September at Nelspruit—

Dr. Verwoerd het gesê dat ons wel lid van die Gemenebes sal wees. Daar is geen twyfel aan nie.

This from a report in the Lowvelder, 15 September. So, as I say, the overwhelming majority of the electorate of this country went to the polls on 5 October having been assured, categorically assured, by hon. members on the other side who campaigned in this referendum that a republic would remain within the Commonwealth. Now of course we are told, after the result is known, that the question of a republic comes first. Then there was no question of being outside the Commonwealth. Now the republic comes first, and if we don’t succeed in remaining in the Commonwealth (I devoutly hope that we shall succeed in remaining in the Commonwealth) that does not matter—this legislation will be proceeded with regardless of the consequences in that direction.

Dr. DE WET:

May I ask the hon. member a question? He speaks of “readmission ”. At what time will our membership cease and when will it recommence if we are then admitted again?

Mr. HORAK:

If the hon. member wants & lecture on Commonwealth procedure, I am prepared to give it to him in the Lobby afterwards. I don’t want to waste the time of this House by giving this somewhat elementary explanation.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is quite obvious that if we go out, we will have to be readmitted.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Sunnyside holds the floor.

Mr. HORAK:

Of course there was always the question in regard to our continued membership of the Commonwealth, but I say in all sincerity, without wanting to make political capital out of it, that I am convinced that most of the people who went to the polls on 5 October felt and were satisfied that the future in regard to our membership of the Commonwealth was not in doubt. That is what we ask for now, an assurance that we shall remain in the Commonwealth.

The second aspect of this matter is the question of national unity. I want to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on his language usage this afternoon in his introductory speech when he moved the second reading, and I want to say that I was extremely interested in all the concessions, the sacrifices by the other side of the House, the Afrikaners, in their approach to this whole question. I find fault with one thing, Sir, and this is the growing tendency on the part of hon. members opposite to identify “Afrikaner” with the Nationalist Party. That is not correct. As has been said already about 30 per cent of the Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa voted against the referendum. Those people are also Afrikaners. I mention this in passing. But I want to say in regard to these concessions, these sacrifices, that many of them are in the nature of “I won’t bludgeon you to death with a club; if you behave yourselves, I will put you quietly to death in a gas-chamber As far as this whole question of national unity is concerned, I want to suggest with all respect, that the hon. the Prime Minister and members on the other side of the House are putting the cart before the horse. They are subjecting this concept of a republic, this ideal for many people, to a grossly unfair strain. They look at it as a deus ex machina, an instrument which will solve so many of the problems of our somewhat troubled times, and one of the problems which they think it will solve is this question of disunity in South Africa amongst honourable gentlemen on that side and many of the people who vote for them, and people on this side of the House. I think this is an unfair strain upon this new venture. I think it is unfair to expect it to lead to a universal panacea for all our ills, and particularly this ill of national disunity, which we on this side of the House and our predecessors have attempted to deal with since 1905, striving with all our might for national unity. As far as national unity is concerned, I believe that first things must come first. Rightly or wrongly, hundreds of public servants in this country believe that promotion in the public service does not go on merit, but in terms of political belief …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I cannot quite see what that has to do with the Bill under discussion.

Mr. HORAK:

Sir, I think this is fundamental to national unity, but I shall leave that point. Rightly or wrongly, Sir, many hundreds and thousands of South Africans believe at this moment—and the coming of the republic makes no difference—that their heroes of the past, their great men, have been somewhat shabbily and contemptuously treated under the present régime.

An HON. MEMBER:

Who for instance?

Mr. HORAK:

Sir, may I make this point: At the Gen. Botha Monument, in the Union Building grounds, an annual commemoration service is held. Gen. Botha was the first Prime Minister of the Union, one of the architects of Union, but I have not yet on any of those occasions seen any of those hon. members opposite at that annual commemoration, and in fact, the committee which runs this commemoration service year after year is refused the services even of the Defence Force Band, or even of one bugler of that hand.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. HORAK:

First things must come first, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have national unity in the republic. There must be in respect of these things which I have mentioned a change of heart. That is why I have mentioned them. There must not be the sort of attitude which was displayed by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who said “a change of heart be damned ”. That is not the way to approach this matter, and it is not the way in which we are approaching it. We have been told that this will be a new beginning, and I believe it. It is difficult to say where the future will lead us, we have been told, and that it is not possible for hon. members opposite to bind future generations, but that a constitutional change if it should come would be an evolutionary process, stemming from this foundation. Those were the words used by the hon. the Prime Minister. In regard to this evolutionary process I want to say that that depends to a large extent on the human material and the attitude of mind of the generations to come. These things which I have mentioned in relation to national unity, these things, which rightly or wrongly, people regard as being chasms between the two sections in this country, must be cleared out of the way first. Assurances should be given in this regard to people who are fearful as to the future in a republic, in order to ensure that the evolutionary process which will take place in the future in relation to our constitutional development, will be an evolutionary process which will lead to unity, not to further disintegration and a further conflict. I regret that I do not see in any of the actions of hon. members on the other side any foundation for the present generation which will lead them along evolutionary process to greater unity, to greater understanding, to greater tolerance and to a better appreciation of one another’s culture and traditions. I do not see that foundation. I do not believe that the simple effect of the introduction of this change will alter that situation. More is necessary than just this Constitution, and amongst the things which are necessary, as my hon. Leader has said, is some sort of assurance which will be believed and understood by the people of this country, who, rightly or wrongly, do not see in this Bill any guarantee whatever for their future as minority groups and do not see in it any future in which we can all come together as a great South African nation. That after all, is the aspiration of every one of us. I have dealt with the question of unity between White and White, with the evolutionary process which I hope will lead to such unity, and I have stated what I believed to be fundamental to the successful and satisfactory evolvement of a situation of that kind—a little more, as I have said, than this far-reaching constitutional step.

But what about the non-White situation? We don’t talk about national unity in regard to the developing, emergent non-White peoples of South Africa. But I believe that it is vitally important for all of us to engender in those people a common patriotism, a common desire to defend our Constitution, our way of life, our future and their future. I don’t believe that the simple passage of this Bill, the simple fact of this constitutional change is going to make one iota of difference in the right direction, in making those non-Whites develop towards a common patriotism, a common love of this fatherland. In fact I fear that this change, occurring as it does, without consultation of these people and with the exclusion of the Coloured voters from the roll for these purposes, is going to lead to the very opposite, to the halting of any march towards a common patriotism which might have existed amongst so many of those people. Rightly or wrongly again, many of those people feel a very deep attachment for the monarchial system, some of them for obviously fallacious reasons— some of them speak in terms of the great Queen Victoria. That is so. But it remains a fact that they have this attachment, and it is something I think in which consultation, explanation, might have assisted a great deal.

I fear, as I have said, that amongst these people, because of the lines along which this change is being effected, there is a great deal of suspicion and fear. I want to say that the simple fact of this change, of our reaching a republican form of government is not going to allay that fear and suspicion. More than that is necessary. That is why we ask for these things to be done before this Bill goes through its second reading. Sir, I am not a sentimental monarchist at all. I have a practical appreciation of the merits, the very great value of the monarchial system as it has been applied to us, but I am not a sentimental monarchist. Not at all. I am of Afrikaner descent entirely, and I have an intellectual admiration for the monarchial system, and I think we were doing very well, thank you, under this system. I believe that the introduction of this new constitutional form as a constitutional evolutionary process, provided all those factors I have mentioned are present, would probably be a good thing. But the factors that I have mentioned are not present. The cart is in front of the horse. There are so many other things that might have been done first and should have been done first before proceeding along these lines. Therefore I and my colleagues here, in the absence of those assurances for which we have asked, in the absence of all these things I have mentioned, will vote against the second reading of this Bill.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

In introducing this Bill this afternoon, the Prime Minister has given South Africa, both the South Africa of to-day and of the future, a foundation on which we can and shall build for generations and many years to come. We therefore want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Prime Minister most sincerely not only for the contents of this Bill but also for the way in which it has been introduced and submitted to this House for consideration.

The hon. member who has just sat down made one reference which gratified me, and I trust that we are all deeply in earnest about this matter and that we are not merely paying lip service to this ideal, namely that we should all strive wholeheartedly to achieve greater national unity in South Africa. Allow me to give the hon. member the assurance that as far as I myself and hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, it is our deepfelt desire to seek greater national unity amongst the Whites both to-day and in future in South Africa; we are seeking to achieve that unity without surrendering the principles on which we must build. We do not expect one side to sacrifice its political principles in order to achieve greater national unity. All we are asking for is greater loyalty and a deeper love for South Africa in furthering and protecting the interests of South Africa and that South Africa should be put first. As a matter of fact this was the primary motive underlying the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister last year that the time had come to test the will of the people on this matter. We had the opportunity on 31 May last year in Bloemfontein. The golden columns were brought into the stadium symbolizing 50 golden years. Our hearts beat faster with pride and happiness at the thought that we formed part of this country and that we had been able to make our humble contribution towards these golden years which we had experienced and the achievements of which we could rightly be proud. This is true of both the English-speaking as well as the Afrikaans-speaking peoples, and not only the White section of the population, but also the non-Whites whose labour was used to bring about these achievements. But when we see what debates are sometimes held in this House and outside at meetings, then with hesitation we have to say that we cannot be so proud of the way in which we have built a united nation hitherto. We have made progress, but there are still great weaknesses. And when we look back over the constitutional development of South Africa, then we find that greater national unity has been achieved whenever we have taken a constitutional step towards removing the symbols of division from our national life. Whenever we have adopted symbols of nationhood and unity and we have removed symbols of division, national unity has grown and become stronger, until we reached the stage when last year we passed the necessary legislation to hold a referendum on South Africa’s future form of government. And now we are removing this final and greatest dividing element from our national life. I now repeat that the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) told us that hon. members opposite also wish to strive for greater national unity. I should very much have liked to comment on his remarks regarding the 18year-old voters, and who according to him played a decisive role in the referendum, but Mr. Speaker, as you called the hon. member to order, I shall only say in passing that if it is true that the 18-year-olds played a decisive role on this referendum it is an admission which does not hold out much promise for the future of that hon. member especially. The hon. member for Sunnyside made certain charges against speakers on this side of the House in respect of statements which we are supposed to have made during the referendum campaign. It is true that many things are said during such a campaign, but I am not aware that any republican leader ever gave the assurance during this campaign that when South Africa became a republic we would remain a member of the Commonwealth. On the contrary the hon. the Prime Minister, other members of the Cabinet and members on this side of the House have repeatedly put this matter very clearly in this House, and the hon. member knows that we could not give such an assurance. I now want to give the hon. member the assurance that if it lies within the power of this side of the House or within the power of the Cabinet, or within the power of the Prime Minister, to decide whether we shall remain a member of the Commonwealth, we shall do so. The Prime Minister gave him that assurance this afternoon. It is our deep desire to remain a member of the Commonwealth and that was made quite clear during the referendum campaign. However, the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. J. J. Fouché, Jnr.) has quite rightly and very ably said this afternoon that if we are not allowed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, South Africa will nevertheless become a republic. And that is how the matter was also put to the voters. But I should like to point out to the hon. member that we know that United Party speakers have gone out of their way and their Press have supported them in their efforts, to persuade the electorate that this assurance of Dr. Verwoerd that we shall try to remain a member of the Commonwealth is untrue and that Dr. Verwoerd only wanted to catch their votes but that as soon as we established a republic we would leave the Commonwealth. United Party speakers, monarchial speakers, repeatedly made that allegation during the campaign, and the hon. member must not come to-day and attribute such statements to us. But in their wisdom the electorate preferred not to believe the monarchist speakers and the liberal newspapers of South Africa, but voted in favour of a republic in the definite knowledge that we would make an honest attempt to remain a member of the Commonwealth but also in the definite knowledge that if we did not succeed in that aim, we would nevertheless establish a republic.

I stated at the outset that in introducing this Bill the hon. the Prime Minister has given South Africa a foundation on which we shall continue to build for many years to come. The Leader of the Opposition then moved an amendment in which he asked for two things, these two hackneyed old requests. The one is that the hon. the Prime Minister should give South Africa the assurance that we shall remain a member of the Commonwealth and the second is that greater national unity will be achieved. I have dealt briefly with the question of national unity. If that is what hon. members opposite want it lies within their power to achieve greater national unity in South Africa. There remains practically nothing which this side of the House can do to achieve national unity. But we shall not achieve national unity in this country if one of the two parties does not want that unity because its only hope of a political future lies in division. That is unfortunately also reflected by the speeches we have heard up to date during this debate. Now that the people have decided that South Africa should become a republic, we have an opportunity to achieve this object. No matter how disparagingly and contemptuously hon. members may refer to the majority of 75,000 in favour of a republic, no matter how disparagingly the Progressive Party, followed by the United Party, may refer to this referendum because only the White voters took part in this decision, I now want to put a question to the Opposition members which I hope one of them will answer: Let us assume for the sake of argument that 90 per cent of the White voters of South Africa (and under our parliamentary system this Parliament derives its authority from the White voters of South Africa) had voted in favour of a republican form of government, and we were to decide to consult the non-White groups in South Africa as well, as the Opposition apparently wish us to do, because they have made the reproach that only the wishes of the Whites have been consulted in this regard, and assuming the non-Whites were to be unanimously opposed to the republican form of government, would the Leader of the Opposition then accept the decision of 90 per cent of the White voters, or would he accept the decision of 100 per cent of the non-White voters? I do not want to put this question to any particular member. Seeing that we have now repeatedly heard these disparaging remarks, made in a reproachful voice, to the effect that this decision only represents the wishes of the White voters, that we only have a majority of the White voters for the republic, I want to assume for the sake of argument that we have consulted the non-Whites, and that a large majority of the non-Whites are in favour of a monarchy or opposed to a republican form of government. Whose wishes would the Leader of the Opposition then comply with? The wishes of the 90 per cent of the White voters or the wishes of the majority of the non-White voters? I am glad that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here at the moment because here is something about which we do not have clarity and I do not want to misinterpret his words or his remarks. Disparaging remarks have been made not only during this debate, but also during the referendum, and I am now going to put this question pertinently to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Sir de Villiers Graaff). For the sake of argument I put this question: Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in favour of the non-Whites being consulted about the future form of government of South Africa?

*An HON. MEMBER:

You are optimistic if you think you will get an answer.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, I have reason to put this question because I say that hon. members are continuously referring reproachfully to the fact that only the White voters have had a say in this matter. From this one can only infer that they would have liked the non-Whites also to have been consulted on this matter. I wonder whether the Progressive Party has sufficient courage to answer this question?

*Mr. WILLIAMS:

We shall reply.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

We should like to know, and I should like to put a further question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, while he is considering this one. I should like to ask him to ask one of his speakers to answer this question and to say whether only the will of the White man should prevail here, or also that of the non-Whites. But if the non-Whites should also be consulted, then I again put this question to the Leader of the Opposition: Assuming that the majority of the non-Whites are opposed to a republican form of government, whose wishes should then prevail; must the will of the White man prevail or the will of the Black man?

*The MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) will probably answer on that point.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

No, he will not answer. Strictly speaking we should not have had a second reading of this Bill. Strictly speaking the people, as represented by the White voters of South Africa, have already adopted the second reading. The principle of this Bill has not been adopted by the House of Assembly, but because we decided accordingly in legislation adopted during a previous session the second reading was submitted to the electorate and the principle has already been adopted by a majority of 75,000 votes.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

But no one knew what the Bill contained.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

This Bill could have been moved this afternoon, and to be consistent we could have decided that the principle had already been adopted. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) says that no one knew what the Bill contained. Of course he would not know what it contains because he is not prepared to accept the assurances which the hon. the Prime Minister has given this House and the country. The Bill only contains those changes which are consequential upon the establishment of a republic and the new form of government. During the debates on the Referendum Bill and during the referendum campaign the hon. the Prime Minister gave the assurance that the basis of the Bill would be the Union Constitution with a minimum number of changes and no drastic amendments. The United Party speakers then tried to bluff the voters and I do not believe for one moment that this behaviour can contribute toward achieving greater national unity in South Africa.

*Mr. TUCKER:

May I ask a question? If that is so, why did the hon. the Prime Minister then not have the courage to have the Draft Constitution published, as the Opposition asked?

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, this Draft Constitution was published as long ago as 5 December. I think it was as soon as the referendum had been held.

*Mr. TUCKER:

Yes, after the referendum.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Yes, of course, as soon as it was ready after the referendum. But there was after all no uncertainty as to the contents of the Bill. But whether it was published or not, the Opposition did not pay any attention. They did not accept these assurances. The Opposition refused to accept the assurances which the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly given, namely that we shall make an honest attempt to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I have already pointed out how monarchist speaker after monarchist speaker tried to persuade the electorate that this was only a trick to catch their votes and that as soon as we became a republic we would leave the Commonwealth of our own accord.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Would the hon. member for Springs have voted differently if it had been published?

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Of course he would not have voted any differently if it had not been published. I think we must get away from this question of whether or not we shall remain a member. It is not within the power of this House to say that we shall remain a member. It is only within our power to say that we shall make an honest attempt to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, there must not be any uncertainty on one point. The day may come when South Africa of her own free will and choice may leave the Commonwealth.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

So!

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Such a day may come. If the hon. member over there thinks that we are going to tie the hands of the children of South Africa for all time to come by giving the assurance to-day that we will always remain a member of the Commonwealth, he is making a mistake. When the day comes that South Africa’s self-respect is being destroyed by the fact that she must remain a member, on that day will I strive to get us out of the Commonwealth. It will depend on the character of the Commonwealth and for so long as it remains in the best interests of South Africa to remain a member, I as a member of this House and of this side of the House will strive and work for us to remain a member. But just as sure as we stand here, when the time comes that we consider in the light we have that it is no longer in our best interests to remain a member, I shall work just as energetically for us to leave the Commonwealth so that the interests of South Africa can be put first. Because the primary aim underlying the establishment of this republic is to further the interests and welfare of the inhabitants of our country and the future of South Africa. I conclude by just repeating that here we have opportunity to give form to the republic. Here an invitation has come from the heart of the Prime Minister to the English-speaking people, to the Opposition members in the House, to co-operate with us in giving form to the republic, in turning out the best possible product, the common property of this nation and not of the National Party alone.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) say in the early part of his speech that what they expected from this side of the House was not national unity but greater love for South Africa and greater loyality. I do not know what the hon. member understands by loyalty and love but the best type of loyalty that one can give one’s country is to serve it at all times. I challenge the hon. member and every member on the other side to prove that their record of service to South Africa is equal to that of the United Party and its predecessor, the old South African Party.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

What service?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

I need only mention the establishment of Union, which was the work of the founders of the old South African Party, and that is perhaps the greatest service that has been rendered to South Africa. Let us come a little nearer. In 1914, when for the first time South Africa as a new country, as a young state, saw the dark war clouds, it was the predecessors of this party who loyally stood by South Africa and who did not hesitate to offer their services, even though it meant sacrificing their lives. Since we have heard such a great deal about national unity, can those hon. members tell us who the people were who at that time accused Generals Smuts and Botha of wanting to shed Afrikaner blood …

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I think the hon. member is wandering too far away from the Bill.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the accusation which came from the other side that this side of the House has shown no love for South Africa, and I want to try to indicate that in 1914 we on this side heard all these accusations from members on the other side that the South African Party wanted to shed Afrikaner blood in order to obtain another colony for England, namely South West Africa. To-day they are the people who say that South West Africa belongs to the Union because it was won at the cost of Afrikaner blood. I do not want to pursue that except to say that the last war is still too fresh in our memories for us not to be aware who served South Africa and who did not. I think I have said enough in that connection.

It seems to me that the difference between that side of the House and this side is this, that when we talk about a republic bringing about national unity, our conception of national unity is not the same. We believe that co-operation between the two White races must take place on the basis of mutual respect, with two cultures perhaps but with a common loyalty to South Africa. The conception of the party opposite is that there can only be national unity if the Nationalist Party is able to swallow every English-speaking South African and if he is willing to become the servant and a member of the Nationalist Party. You see, long ago when the Nationalist Party was founded, it was founded on the basis of a two-stream policy for the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section, in contrast with a policy of national unity as advocated by the United Party and the South African Party. That is history and nobody can get away from it. We have heard the hon. the Prime Minister here to-day—and let me just say that I have no complaints against him; I think I can only say this about him that he is one of the very few people on the other side who has been honest and straightforward with this republican effort. He was so straightforward that he said that even if there was a majority of one only he would still proceed. On one occasion he was honest enough to say: “It does not matter whether it is a republic inside or outside the Commonwealth; South Africa is going to become a republic.” I must say that his “Dear friend” letter left some doubt in the minds of the voters, particularly after they had read the speech of the eloquent and impetuous member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in which he said that he would wager 100 to one that we would stay in the Commonwealth.

*Mr. B. COETZEE:

Do you want to accept the wager?

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

There the hon. member repeats it. And yet the member for Wolmaransstad comes along and says that no single responsible Nationalist ever said that South Africa would remain a member of the Commonwealth. Perhaps he does not regard the member for Vereeniging as a responsible member but in any case that is what he said. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The hon. member for Vereeniging now admits what I wanted to say, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would have denied it in any case. I was saying that the impression that was created by every member on the other side and by the whole of the Nationalist Party was that there was not the slightest doubt that after the referendum South ‘Africa, if the Nationalist Party won the referendum, would remain a member of the Commonwealth. I held a meeting at Worcester, in the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Finance, and there I stated that I did not know whether South Africa would be allowed to become a member of the Commonwealth again, once we had become a republic, and that I did not know whether we would retain our preferential tariffs if we were not a member of the Commonwealth. A director of the K.W.V. then stood up and said that he could give the assurance on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Finance, who was his Member of Parliament, that it was purely a formality and that there was not the slightest doubt that South Africa would remain a member. How dare these hon. members now come along and say that there was not the slightest doubt in the minds of the electorate as to whether South Africa was going to become a republic within or outside of the Commonwealth? The question never arose. I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that if he visits the farmers in the Western Province he will find that not 10 per cent of his supporters would be willing to vote for a republic outside of the Commonwealth. I think it is only reasonable therefore that the hon. the Prime Minister should consider my hon. Leader’s amendment. On one occasion I saw a fine motto on the desk of the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, the then Administrator which read as follows (I wrote it down): “Is it the truth; is it fair? If it is controversial don’t do it unless it is urgent.” Let me say this to the hon. the Prime Minister. This whole question is contentious. If it is urgent, then proceed. But what is the hurry and why cannot this whole matter wait until he has more certainty or until he returns from oversea? What is the hurry? I am a farmer who also has to grow fruit, and I realize what difficulties we are already facing in regard to our markets.

*Dr. VAN NIEROP:

[Inaudible.]

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

It is easy for the hon. dentist member for Mossel Bay and for other hon. members, who have no interest in farming, to talk; it is easy for political agents who do not have to make their living out of farming. I have no other home and I must see to it that the best conditions are brought into being in South Africa for my wife and my children. In asking that, I think it is only reasonable to ask that hon. members on the other side should at least be serious about the future. If we are excluded from the Commonwealth, I do not know what disadvantages it will entail for me as a fruit grower. The Prime Minister has said that our preferential tariffs will not necessarily come to an end. I understand that that is correct and I accept it, but I think the Prime Minister will be the first to admit here that it does not necessarily follow that we will retain those benefits, and he will admit that certain changes will be necessary. When hon. members who seek no other income for themselves apart from their parliamentary salary are perturbed about their salaries, then I can well understand why they place the political party, which gave them their seats, above everything else, whereas I make my living out of the soil of South Africa and I have to put South Africa first. That is the difference. And when the interests of South Africa clash with the interests of the United Party, I shall choose the interests of South Africa at all times and stand by South Africa. [Interjections.] But those hon. members who are making such unpleasant remarks are obviously bound to choose the interests of the Nationalist Party rather than the interests of South Africa, because the interests of the Nationalist Party are their interests while the interests of South Africa are my interests. That is the difference.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said—and that is what perturbs me, and that is why I want him to rise and to say that he accepts this motion—that membership of the commonwealth represents a concession.

Mr. MAL AN:

A sacrifice.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

He does not regard it as an advantage to us, but as a sacrifice on the part of the Nationalist Party. I do not want him to make such sacrifices and concessions. I only want him to consider what is in the best interest of South Africa. We on this side consider it in our best interests to retain our membership of the Commonwealth, and when the hon. the Prime Minister says by implication that he does not regard it as being in our best interests but as a concession, then I begin to have my doubts.

*An HON. MEMBER:

He did not say that.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

He did. And I become doubtful particularly after having read the report of a speech by the hon. the Minister of Defence, in which he said this during the referendum campaign—

We shall remain in the Commonwealth as long as it suits us. When we listen to hon. members on the other side, we wonder, knowing their history, whether they are really in earnest about continued membership of the Commonwealth. As somebody who does not attend these major conferences, I can only go by the evidence at my disposal. But the hon. the Prime Minister knows that to-day in the military sphere we have free access to the military training colleges of Britain because of the fact that we are a member of the Commonwealth. We have no difficulty at all in sending our officers there for further training. As far as I know it is a privilege which we are able to enjoy only because we are a member of the Commonwealth. I should not like South Africa, in the dangerous times in which we live, to be treated as a stranger in that friendly partnership of nations which has served us so well in the past. I have already dealt with the way in which the position of the fruit grower may be affected. The hon. the Prime Minister was very honest. He said that we would not necessarily lose our privileges when we became a republic. But I shall be grateful if, when the Prime Minister replies, he will give us the assurance that if we become a republic outside of the Commonwealth, we shall retain those privileges.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Ask Jan Graaff.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Jan Graaff made it fairly clear that we would remain in the Commonwealth. I find myself in this difficulty that according to the Burger the people believed Jan Graaff, and now it looks as though he vas not entirely correct. I thought there was not the slightest doubt in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister that we could remain in the Commonwealth. I have mentioned the advantages that we have to-day purely as a result of the friendly relations between the members of the Commonwealth. I have mentioned the advantages in connection with the training of officers, and I do not want to go into all of them. Despite what the hon. the Prime Minister said here I think he was sincere in saying that it entails a sacrifice to remain within the Commonwealth. I believe that he will make a sincere endeavour to keep South Africa within the Commonwealth, and from this side of the House I can say to him that I know that there is not a single member here who would wish him anything but success in his negotiations to keep South Africa a member of the Commonwealth. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

If the hon. the Prime Minister decides that it is such an urgent matter and that we must get the republic …

*Mr. P. J. COETZEE:

We will get it.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

The Prime Minister says that we will get it. He says that it will not help us to oppose it because it will come in any case. Well, death is equally certain, but why should we hurry to go to meet it?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is not under discussion at the moment.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, I say once again that there is not the slightest doubt that on this side it is our most sincere wish that the Prime Minister should succeed in his attempts to keep us in the Commonwealth. And if he returns without having succeeded, then the responsibility will rest squarely on him and the Nationalist Party if they lead us down the precipice. And then they must not search for excuses; they must not do what they did in the case of South West Africa. On that occasion they said “We will not yield; we refuse to send any reports ”. I still remember that story. I want to say this to the Prime Minister. This Government is taking upon itself a responsibility that I would not care to take upon myself. Their own people will not forgive them if on their return they have to report that they have failed. There is no necessity for the hon. the Prime Minister to be in such a hurry. Their story that 80,000 more voted in favour of a republic—well, it is true, but how was the majority obtained? Why is it that White South African citizens who are registered here, who pay taxes here but who were overseas at the time were not allowed to vote?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member cannot now discuss an Act passed at a previous session.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, what I want to indicate is that not even all the White citizens voted in the referendum and that consequently it was not even a majority of all the White citizens. In other words, it is not a mandate for the Prime Minister. I do not want to go into this at great length but I do want to say that the cheating that took place during the referendum campaign was absolutely terrible.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill or resume his seat.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to circumvent your ruling. I merely want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister need not feel, when he looks at the result of the referendum, that he is obliged to proceed with this matter in an unnecessarily hasty fashion.

The hon. the Prime Minister has said that the republic will bring about greater national unity. National unity does not come about through laws but through the conduct of a Government and an Opposition. On this side it has always been our desire and wish to have national unity, but we do not want to sacrifice our identity for the sake of national unity. We do not want to be forced to join the Nationalist Party in order to achieve national unity. The hon. the Prime Minister wanted to know what more could he do to bring about national unity. I want to mention a few things which he can do. In the first place he can take steps to ensure that apartheid between Whites comes to an end in our schools, that the Afrikaansand English-speaking children are able to meet one another and learn to speak one another’s language.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That is not under consideration either.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

But I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is being introduced to bring about national unity.

Mr. MOORE:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister in introducing this Bill described the road to national unity to us. My hon. friend is following that road and he is explaining his own opinion in that regard.

Mr. SPEAKER:

But he has wandered slightly off the road.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

If I went a bit too far in discussing the schools, let me come a bit nearer and straight to the point by saying to the hon. the Prime Minister that another good thing he can do to bring about national unity is this: Let him sack Mr. Kruger, the cultural adviser on the radio network who stirred up ill feeling on the radio during the referendum campaign between Afrikaners and Britishers over acts perpetrated by our forefathers. I could also mention a few other people who ought to be sacked. Mr. Speaker, I say once again that the people who were tricked into voting for a republic as a result of the cry of national unity, are bitterly disappointed. I have in mind the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, for example. When the news came that the Liberals were going to support the Government on the question of a republic, although they did not agree on other matters, he was the first to say: “Vote for a republic; under a republic there will be a different colour policy.” He said so much on that occasion that he got poor Dawie into trouble, and many other people as well-including himself.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member says the wrong thing over and over again.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Mr. Speaker, in that case I shall say the right thing now. The Prime Minister must realize that national unity cannot be built up along the lines on which he is trying to do so at the moment; that national unity can only be built up when there is mutual respect and love coupled with a common loyalty to South Africa; that national unity can only be brought about by the United Party. And if he will realize that, he will be doing South Africa a great service.

*Dr. MULDER:

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was so consistently irrelevant that there is nothing to which I must reply because you would immediately rule me out of order if I were to answer his allegations.

The republican issue was settled outside at the polling booths on 5 October. We as the representatives of the people are here to-night with a mandate from the voters to give expression to their will and to establish a republic. This Opposition who now wish to disparage this majority, are in every respect the same people who were prepared to join battle on this issue. If they are not prepared to accept the result, they should not have joined battle. But the moment they did so, they bound themselves to the rules of the game, and they should as good democrats accept the result. We are being repeatedly told that there was only a majority of 4 per cent, and some say of 2 per cent. Whatever the percentage may be, I now want to put this question in all sincerity: If the noes had a majority of 4 per cent would they have allowed us to continue with the establishment of a republic; would they have regarded it as adequate to prevent us from continuing with the republic? It is quite clear to me that they are only trying to disparage this majority because they have lost the referendum.

Then they have gone further—and I shall come back to this later—and as Natal has done, they are laying down certain conditions; they are making certain demands and certain guarantees must now be written into the Constitution. This reminds me very much of a fight between two boxers. When the winner has knocked out his opponent and he has been counted out once and for all, the loser rises after he has been revived and says: I did lose the fight, but under the following conditions. The people have accepted the principle. And if the Opposition want to be democrats, which is how we have always regarded our English-speaking friends and fellow countrymen, they should accept the decision of the people and co-operate on a positive basis in the implementation of the mandate from the people.

Mr. Speaker, what is the background to this Bill; from where does it originate? The Constitution of South Africa, the South Africa Act which was passed in 1909, was in reality for all practical purposes a compromise between the two republics and the two Crown Colonies. It was therefore a compromise between the ideals, the wishes and the systems of the supporters of a monarchial form of government and of a republican form of government. It was only logical and I regard it as obvious that in this artificial amalgamation of two such divergent principles, there should be points of friction which over the years and as time passed would have to be gradually smoothed away by the mill of experience, by the mill of a South Africa culture and spirit of her own. And as a result of this process various points have gradually been smoothed away over the years from 1909 onwards. Points which at that stage represented an artificial theoretical unity have gradually been smoothed away and have gradually become blended. The mill of South Africa has gradually blended together the extremists on both sides, in both language groups and in both the traditionally different national groups. The problems of South Africa have brought all the national groups closer together. We have been brought closer together whether we wished it or not, and we have been brought closer together by South Africa’s unique character and her unique problems. In this way various problems have been solved over the years. The recognition of our language rights and the application of equal language rights is one of those things which has only gradually come about and which even to-day is not yet completely settled in Natal. There is the flag question. Although we entered into the Union of South Africa with the British flag, the Afrikaans-speaking people also gradually began to work for their own flag as their symbol of freedom, and eventually this problem was solved by the introduction of the Union flag which is the symbol of concessions on both sides. One after the other, all these problems have been solved over the years, e.g. by the introduction of a National Anthem and South African citizenship. The final remaining constitutional obstacle is the establishment of a republic in South Africa, by which we shall at last give the people of South Africa the form of government which is indigenous to South Africa. Over the years we have had a strange position, namely that immediately prior to the introduction of this Bill we were a monarchy without a monarch, with a Constitution which for all practical purposes was that of a republic. I read from the leading article of the Cape Argus of 21 January 1960—

The first thing to remember is that South Africa is already a republic in all but name and outward form.

What is the republican background of the Afrikaner? I should like to commence at that point, and I think that when the English-speaking section of our population understand the background and the traditional love of a republic for the Afrikaner, they may better understand how to approach this matter. Throughout the history of South Africa, whenever he has had the opportunity to choose his own form of government the Afrikaner has without exception chosen the republican form of government and no other. I am not referring to the early days when they had no say, but on the first occasion that the citizens of Swellendam and Graaff-Reinet rebelled against the Government of the time, they immediately established two republics and not some other form of government. These were not monarchies or dictatorships, but republics. Thus I can go through our history. After the Great Trek, when the trekkers found themselves in the Free State, the first thing they did was to draw up a Constitution and establish the Republic of Winburg. In Natal, after all the bloodshed and the attempts which were made to make the country inhabitable, after the battle of Blood River and all the pain and sorrow of Weenen and Bloukrans, what did the people do? They established a republican form of government, the Republic Natalia. In the Transvaal we originally had various small republics which eventually united into the South African Republic, and that name already indicated the ideal of a great South African republic such as we shall achieve on 31 May. Even later, when small pieces of land came under the control of the Afrikaners, they established republics such as Stellaland and Goosen. On every occasion, whenever they have had control over their form of government, the Afrikaans-speaking people have without exception chosen the republican form of government.

*Mr. RAW:

How many of them lasted?

*Dr. MULDER:

This one will last and you will be a citizen of it. It is perhaps clear to the English-speaking people that with this traditional background of the Afrikaners’ preference for the republican form of government, it is only logical and obvious that the Afrikaner would continue to strive for that form of government and that he would not abandon the struggle until that ideal had once again been realized because at the same time the Afrikaner felt that the republican form of government had become a symbol to him of his freedom and independence. This is therefore the ideal for which he has striven. In the same spirit I want to say at once that the monarchial form of government is definitely and without question the most desirable form of government for Britain. We can study in history how the monarchial form of government has developed in accordance with the traditions and background of the British people and I say most sincerely that I do not begrudge them it. But the monarchial form of government is quite foreign to South Africa. Our history does not indicate anywhere that the monarchial form of government has ever formed part of the way of life even of the English-speaking people. A monarchial form of government presupposes titles, sirs, lords, etc. Is this the typically South African system? Would it be accepted here? This presupposes class distinctions such as we find in Britain, with upper and lower classes. South Africa would never tolerate a class system amongst the Whites because we are all regarded as equal. The whole monarchial system is therefore foreign to our background and traditions. This is the background to this Bill and our standpoint that we wish to establish the Republic of South Africa represents the development of a traditional background which is now merely finding its normal and natural expression in this legislation. It is merely the conclusion of a process of development which has lasted for centuries, and the sooner the Opposition understand this, the sooner they will reconcile themselves to this position and realize that as far as they are concerned, this is an unavoidable evil which they will have to accept.

In his motion the Leader of the Opposition has made two points which he wishes to emphasize. The first relates to our links with the Commonwealth, the second to national unity. I do not want to delve too deeply into the question of our links with the Commonwealth, because so many speakers have already discussed this aspect that it is really a waste of time to say anything further. The fact remains that the Prime Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to preserve our membership of the Commonwealth and that he is on his way to London to try to do so to the best of his ability—I assume with the support of all South Africa. But what I really want to discuss is national unity. I want to say at once that without national unity and racial harmony between the Whites of South Africa, no South African nation can ever be built up, and without national unity the White man cannot continue to exist in South Africa. I want to lay that down at the outset as my basic premise in discussing this matter, namely that national unity has been essential throughout our past history and is now more essential than ever as far as the future is concerned. I want to quote from a book which I read some time ago. It says that the Afrikaansand English-speaking peoples in this country are like two young wrestlers who are engaged in a tremendous wrestling match, so much so that they do not even notice where they are wrestling, and the author uses the allegory that they are wrestling on a railway line while an express train is rapidly approaching: If they do not cease fighting and resolve their differences, they are both doomed to destruction. I say that national unity is essential. This republic will in fact give us national unity and it is for that reason that I support this Bill. I am not referring to previous attempts to achieve national unity. We know of the attempt to achieve unity which was made in 1933 with the fusion of the political parties, of which the United Party is still a reminder. This was an artificial amalgamation of two political parties and it may have resulted temporarily in a politically strong alliance but there was no national unity because there was no unity in principle. National unity can only be achieved in a country when every section of that country has a genuine loyalty and love for their one fatherland. It is in this regard that I point my finger accusingly at the Opposition because to judge by their actions it does not seem as though they do love South Africa because in everything they do they are still providing ammunition to the enemies of South Africa. The speeches of each and every one of them up to date is going to be quoted outside against South Africa by our enemies. If they really loved South Africa, their speeches would not have contained this poison which our enemies can exploit.

I want to give another example. In Britain we find that in the schools, the churches and from the political platforms, the unity of Britain is emphasized, the language of Britain is praised as a world language, the flag is honoured as the flag which waves over all continents, the British Empire is held up as the greatest of all time, an Empire on which the sun never sets; the children are taught: “Britannia rules the waves,” and loyalty towards Britain as their only fatherland is inspired. I say it is right and proper that this is so. In this way the various speakers no matter to which party they belong, are promoting national unity, because there is genuine national unity. In France the pride of the French people is being aroused and they are being inspired anew with the ideals and the spirit of a man like Napoleon who made France great. The people are being united into one nation, and the same applies to Germany, Japan, China and the Congo. But when we rise in South Africa and say that this is the most beautiful country in the world, that our flag is the finest flag, because it is a symbol of our unity, and that we regard our two official languages as the most beautiful because the one is a world language and the other is the most modern language in the world, linguistically speaking; when we refer to our national anthem and we want to inspire our children with love for South Africa, the Opposition say that we are talking politics in the schools and that ministers are preaching politics from the pulpit. We dare not advocate South African patriotism because the Opposition regard it as politics It is because of that attitude that I accuse the Opposition of being responsible for the fact that we do not have national unity because they try to cast suspicion on everything. Here more than in any other country we need national unity to safeguard our future. But that unity can also be achieved by having a head of state who is a South African. A head of state has the ability to unite the people, just as the queen bee keeps the swarm together, because she is their queen of their own choice.

*Mr. HOLLAND:

And now you are taking our Queen away.

*Dr. MULDER:

If the head of state is not a South African citizen, does not come from this nation, does not know and understand the traditions, the background and the problems of this country, does not move amongst the people daily and understand their problems and conflicts, then such a Queen can never bring about unity. The head of state is essential for the unification of the people and this legislation will give us that head of state in the form of a President, a President who will stand above politics.

*Mr. MOORE:

May I ask a question? Do you agree that the President of the Republic should be a born South African?

*Dr. MULDER:

The President must be a South African citizen. [Laughter.] If we were to lay down the test that only born South Africans may hold this position, then I wonder how many members of the Opposition will fall into that category?

*Mr. MOORE:

I am prepared to make the sacrifice. [Laughter.]

*Dr. MULDER:

I just want to remind the hon. member that the British Royal house is not English but German. This head of state is particularly necessary in South Africa because we are a multi-racial country and we have the two language groups. I want to ask whether we should not adopt a new approach in this legislation and I want to take an example from our national life. Are we not all proud of the Soringbok rugby team which is upholding South Africa’s name overseas? And that team is campaigning and playing as a unit, and the team consists of Malans and Oxlees and van Zyls and Wilsons and Kirkpatricks. But they play together for South Africa. When will we have that unity of spirit in this House, or in this country? Just as they are faced with the enemy over there, while there are thousands of spectators who will not intervene or help, just as little can the outside world solve our problems. We shall have to do so amongst ourselves, and the sooner we are inspired by that spirit, the sooner we shall achieve national unity.

The Opposition ask for guarantees which should be written into the Constitution. Is it not a fact that it is due to the flexible British Constitution that there has never been a revolution in the constitutional development of Britain? When the upheaval of the French Revolution shook France and the guillotine took its toll every day, Britain survived that period because her Constitution was flexible. A nation cannot be halted in its attempts to strive for its ideals nor can it be kept from achieving its objects, and when the Constitution stands in its way, there will be revolution rather than development. It was the flexibility of the British Constitution which in 1830 saved it from the revolutions of Europe which resulted in many monarchies and empires collapsing. The fact that Britain in 1832 could pass the Reform Act by a parliamentary majority in order to make certain concessions to the people saved her from a blood revolution such as these other countries experienced. They are now asking for guarantees to be entrenched by two-thirds majorities in order to make our Constitution so inflexible that we shall inevitably have a revolution here so that they may be able to thwart the will of the people at a later stage. No, we cannot do that. I just want to give this advice to the Opposition, in all earnestness and sincerity. We as Afrikaners have a traditionally republican background. That is our ideal. We accept the British traditions. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) has said that he is not a monarchist; it is only the traditional respect which he as a South African has for the Crown. It is not such a serious matter to them. It is the Commonwealth which they regard as being important. Why can hon. members not adopt this new attitude and assist the Government in establishing the republic and why do they not make all their resources available to the Government to ensure that we remain within the Commonwealth, in order to satisfy their aspirations as well as ours? If that were to be the Opposition’s attitude, this republic would be accepted, the decision of the people would be accepted, and then hon. members would not regard this as a victory by one section of the people over another, but this would then represent the achievement of a joint milestone in our development as one nation and as the introduction to the new period which we shall be entering together as South Africans.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cover the ground covered by the last speaker, but I would like to mention one or two points he dealt with. He dealt with this question of Commonwealth relationship at length. I do not know why hon. members opposite simply will not face the fact that if the Commonwealth membership is in jeooardy it is simply because of the hon. the Prime Minister. Our membership was not in jeopardy because of something that South Africa had done, or the way we live, or our internal policy, or because there was a Nationalist Government or per se because we may change our constitutional form of government. It was the Government which brought us to the position of it being put into power of other countries to veto our re-admission to the Commonwealth. I wonder why hon. members opposite keep running away from this. They may have a guilty conscience in respect of the matter. I do not know. The precedents have been established in the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister and members of the Government know what those precedents are. They know the methods adopted by other countries in the Commonwealth, which upon becoming republics adopted a certain procedure, Before tying their country to the change, steps were taken timeously to ascertain the opinions of the other members of the Commonwealth in regard to re-admission on the change taking place, and on that approval having been granted they returned to their own countries and proceeded with the legislation which changed them constitutionally from the monarchial system to the republican system. It could have been done in the case of South Africa. There was nothing to prevent it, except a decision of the Prime Minister to go ahead even if the heavens fell, and to give us a republican form of government. But hon. members opposite for some reason have decided that they will not look at it that way; they will look at it from this angle, that if by chance we are debarred, because we cannot obtain a unanimous vote to be re-admitted to the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister must be able to come back to South Africa and say: I was not prepared to allow these emergent nations to dictate my internal policy and I would sooner be out of the Commonwealth before that happens. But who put us in jeopardy? Why has that stage been reached? The Prime Minister himself was responsible. He is the man who is putting it into the power of these emergent nations, Ghana and Nigeria, to prevent the obtaining of a unanimous vote for our re-admission. Hon. members opposite must be realistic.

Then I would like to say this to the hon. member who has just sat down, that his history has gone a little awry. Sir, he used to teach history. I wonder whether he taught his class that Napoleon was a Frenchman, because that is what we heard from him tonight. Napoleon was a Corsican; he was no more a Frenchman than the Prime Minister is a South African. [Interjections.] The hon. member was also one who followed the Prime Minister in his repealed assertions of what was dear to the heart of all Afrikaners. The Prime Minister for 45 minutes dealt with the Afrikaner and the English-speaking people this afternoon, as though the Afrikaner and the Nationalist Party and the Government were synonymous. Of course that is not so and the Prime Minister has no right to speak for the Afrikaners. I have a greater right to speak for the Afrikaners than he has, but I have no right to speak for the Nationalists, thank heavens. What is all this nonsense about what is in the heart of the Afrikaners? What Afrikaners? It may be in the hearts of the Nationalists, but not the Afrikaners. Let me assure the hon. member and the Prime Minister that this business of the Afrikaner and what he voted for and what is dear to his heart is absolute bunkum as reflected in the result.

HON. MEMBERS:

March!

Mr. MITCHELL:

In my small province of Natal the anti-republican vote, which included Afrikaners, swamped the whole of the republican majority of the Transvaal and the Cape and South West combined. Where is this matter that is so dear to the heart of the Afrikaners? [Interjections.] The Prime Minister told the country that there were a few little white spots here and there in which there was anti-republicanism, but that there was a broad current of republicanism, and this was his mandate, but it was wiped out by Natal. Let us have no more of this nonsense. There has been a great deal of talk of the tradition of the Transvaal and the Free State, although the Prime Minister himself runs away from that. He talks in a tone, almost homesick, about the constitutions of the Transvaal and the Free State Republics. This feeling of homesickness for their wonderful constitutions and the nostalgia in his voice are quite moving. He tells us that here the people were prepared to have that kind of republic and made sacrifices as a sop to the English-speaking people, but in the very next breath he goes on to laud the system in Britain, which is the system of an unwritten constitution where the voice of the majority can change the constitution even at the caprice of Parliament. He lauds the system in Britain because he wants to model our Constitution on it, where the will of the majority, even at the caprice of the majority, can change the constitution. Therefore he will not give us any entrenched clauses. This feeling of nostalgia moved him to tell us what a wonderful constitution the Free State and the Transvaal had, but surely he knows what the position was in the Free State, with its entrenched clauses. There was entrenchment of the constitution, and not only two or three entrenched clauses. That might have been a very good idea and he might have got a lot of English-speaking people to have voted for that kind of constitution, but he must not talk with longing of those constitutions and then immediately run away and then in effect condemn them in his next sentence by saying that he wants the form of constitution they have in Britain, where Parliament is completely free and unfettered and can make changes by a bare majority of one, to change any part of the constitution.

In dealing with the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister virtually belittled it from the point of view of the Afrikaans-speaking people. Again, I say it should be from the side of the Nationalists. He made it appear that he was doing what he was to try to remain in the Commonwealth more or less out of consideration for the feelings of the English-speaking people, as a sort of sop to them. Sir, he knows that he would not even have won the referendum if he had told the people from the start that he would not stay in the Commonwealth. I suppose he now expects to get grovelling thanks from this side of the House for saying that he will try to keep us in the Commonwealth. He has put our Commonwealth connection in jeopardy. He has not tried to preserve it as a sop to the English-speaking section. He knows perfectly well that he would have lost the referendum if he had clearly said in the beginning that he is not interested in the Commonwealth, and the policy of his party was to be outside it. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) made it quite clear that there is a move on foot to get out of the Commonwealth.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1) and the debate was adjourned until 31 January.

The House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.